January 31, 2014

Carol Roland-Nawi, Ph.D State Historic Preservation Officer Attention: Mark Beason Office of Historic Preservation 1725 23rd Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95816

John Fowler, Executive Director Attention: Katherine Kerr Office of Federal Agency Programs Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 809 Old Post Office Building Washington, DC 20004

Christine Lehnertz, Regional Director Attention: Elaine Jackson-Retondo National Park Service – Pacific West Regional Office 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104

Frank Dean, Superintendent Attention: Abby sue Fisher Golden Gate National Recreation Area Building 201 Fort Mason San Francisco, CA 94123

Reference: 2013 Annual Report on Activities under the 2002 Presidio Trust Programmatic Agreement, the Presidio of San Francisco National Historic Landmark District, San Francisco, California

Pursuant to Stipulation XXI of the Presidio Trust Programmatic Agreement (PTPA), enclosed is the 2013 Annual Report of activities conducted under that PA.

2013 marked the first year that the Presidio Trust (Trust) did not receive appropriations from Washington, DC, relying instead entirely on income generated here in the park. Between 1998 and 2012, the Trust has leveraged over $300 million in public money to attract more than $500 million in building investment, while generating over $700 million in leasing revenue. These funds have been reinvested back into the Presidio in order to upgrade ageing infrastructure, build public programs, cover operating expenses, and continue to rehabilitate the Presidio’s

remarkable historic resources. Looking ahead, the Trust is confident in its financial position, and its ability to continue stewardship of the Presidio at the highest level of professional preservation standards. In 2013 we reaffirmed this commitment by organizing our activities into three key initiatives: Initiative I: Welcoming the Public – attracting diverse audiences and engaging them through exceptional places, activities, and experiences

Initiative II: Creating Broad Impact – actively sharing our knowledge, promoting leadership and service, and fostering innovative problem solving

Initiative III: Stewarding the Presidio – enhancing the Presidio’s physical, natural, and historic resources as a cherished public place and national landmark While this report focuses on the third initiative, our preservation program is integrated across the agency’s core activities such that it also directly supports the other two initiatives. For example, in 2013 we began welcoming the public to building 51, an 1889 officer’s family home that was sensitively rehabilitated to accommodate a four-room annex to the Inn at the Presidio (located in building 42 - bachelor officer’s quarters, 1903). Trust staff has continued to dedicate their efforts to the building rehab and exhibit design aimed at reopening the Officers’ Club (building 50) as a history, interpretive and special events venue in 2014. Additionally we have planned for additional visitor serving amenities on Montgomery Street, with the anticipated opening of a full-service restaurant and mercantile food store in the ground floor of building 101 (enlisted men’s barracks, 1895) in the spring of this year. Visitors will enjoy the newly rehabilitated landscape surrounding the building, including restoration of a historic street tree row and characteristic ornamental foundation plantings. Our efforts to create a broad impact through leadership and service training at Fort Scott were advanced this year with the completed rehabilitation of building 1202 and its associated landscape. The 1910 barracks building will now serve as meeting venue and tenant space in support of the Presidio Institute, the Trust’s initiative to develop and train exceptional leaders to solve the great societal challenges of our time. Among the other highlights of 2013 was the opening of the National Japanese American Historical Society’s (NJAHS) Military Intelligence Service Historic Learning Center on Crissy Field that was the product of a long-held vision of the NJAHS, the Trust and the NPS. This important event followed a lengthy rehabilitation, tragic accidental collapse and triumphant reconstruction of the former learning center housed in building 640 (air mail hangar, 1928). Finally, the year was capped by the Trust’s acceptance of the National Trust/ACHP Award for Federal Partnerships in Historic Preservation for the rehabilitation of the Public Health Service District at the National Preservation Awards ceremony in Indianapolis last fall. Compliance department staffing remained unchanged in 2013, with Rob Thomson continuing his role as Deputy Federal Preservation Officer, holding the responsibility for carrying out the terms of the PTPA on a day-to-day basis. Michelle Taylor completed her first full year as the Trust’s Historic Compliance Coordinator, helping oversee the administration of our environmental and historic preservation review process, and acting as a liaison with our residential, building maintenance and project management teams on historic preservation issues. Michelle also lent her considerable research and writing skills to support rehabilitation planning for several projects

ii

(including completed and pending projects at buildings 51, 210, 1818 and 1819) and documentation of the Presidio’s post-War buildings (such as buildings 644, 387, and 63). Also over the course of the year, compliance staff continued consultation on the revision and renewal of the 2002 PTPA, which is on target for completion by April 2014. Executive Director Craig Middleton remained in the role as Federal Preservation Officer. Throughout 2013, the Trust continued to successfully employ Stipulation VII of the PA, a process that is supported by a highly experienced team of reviewers specializing in all aspects of historic preservation practice. As it has since 2002, the Trust’s compliance program combined both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) into a single review process to better implement the principles outlined in 36 CFR §800.8, Coordination With the National Environmental Policy Act, of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Section 106 Regulations and the recently-released Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and ACHP “Handbook for Integrating NEPA and Section 106 Reviews”. This program, known as “N2”, reviews all projects that may affect historic properties. A full accounting of projects reviewed under Stipulation VII is included in this report as Exhibit C, and a detailed description of the process is included as Exhibit B. The N2 team that participates in the above process is comprised of nine preservation professionals that meet the Secretary of Interior’s standards for Archaeology, Historic Architecture, and Architectural History. This team of reviewers includes several Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-accredited professionals (LEED-AP), supporting the Trust’s commitment that all large-budget historic rehabilitations achieve, at minimum, a LEED Silver certification. This commitment is further supported by LEED-AP staff on the construction and project management teams at the Trust. The team of historic preservation professionals regularly involved in full N2 reviews in 2013 is composed of historical architects Rob Wallace and Chandler McCoy; historical landscape architect Michael Lamb; conservator and preservation project manager Christina Wallace; archaeologists Eric Blind, Kari Jones and Liz Clevenger; and historic compliance staff Rob Thomson and Michelle Taylor. As in years past, the historic compliance staff collaborates closely with the Trust’s operations and maintenance crews, who work with the NHL’s buildings, landscapes, roads and forests on a daily basis. These crews are composed of journeymen carpenters, masons, electricians, plumbers, gardeners and foresters, many of which have been trained in preservation maintenance practice, and/or have multiple years of experience working with historic resources at the Presidio. The enclosed report documents all compliance decisions, including Appendix A, administrative and full compliance reviews. Between January 2013 and December 2013, 47 projects were reviewed by Trust preservation professionals through Stipulation VII of the PA. Of these, 24 were reviewed at the administrative level and 23 at the full level of review. Undertakings reviewed typically include projects ranging from full building rehabilitations and seismic upgrades, landscape rehabilitations, program implementation, parking and traffic planning, and natural resource management. The Trust also continues to review a substantial number of “repetitive or low impact activities” through Appendix A of the PA. Appendix A includes actions such as cleaning, painting and minor repairs to buildings, replacement in-kind of deteriorated roofs, road and parking lot maintenance, mitigation or abatement of hazardous materials, and other such low impact activities.

iii

The Trust Archaeology Lab’s busy year included research to promote an understanding of El Presidio de San Francisco, youth education and post-graduate internship programs, in addition to monitoring and assessment to support Trust stewardship efforts. The Lab authored five Archaeological Management Assessments (AMAs) in 2013, which serve as key tools in support of a variety of activities at the Presidio such as environmental remediation, habitat restoration and accessibility improvements (Appendix F). Monitoring covered a similar range of projects, in addition to landscape rehabilitation at Montgomery Street and the ongoing rehabilitation of the Officers’ Club. Archaeological research focused primarily on test excavations at El Presidio associated with the installation of an interpretive landscape along Mesa Street. Work was conducted in accordance with the Lab’s “open site” policy, which encourages active engagement between the visiting public and the archaeological field team. In addition to the Mesa Street work, the Lab completed archaeological identification projects in the MacArthur Meadow future wetland restoration site and adjacent to building 95 (powder magazine, 1863) where Trust crews installed accessibility and landscape enhancements. Lab-sponsored educational programs served over 1,400 K-12 students from across San Francisco and throughout the Bay Area, while supporting five postgraduate internships with participating students from around the country and as far away as Australia. The interns also completed individual projects; highlights from 2013 include a final archaeological excavation report, an ArcGIS geodatabase project compiling years of legacy research at El Presidio, a summary publication of NHLD-contributing archaeological areas at the Presidio aimed at a lay audience, and an integrated pest management plan for the archaeological collections. Following the successful conclusion of the Section 106 consultation on the Main Post Update in 2010, the Trust focused its efforts in the Main Post historic building documentation and interpretation of the archaeological remains of El Presidio along Mesa Street and at the Spanish Chapel site. Historic compliance staff distributed quarterly email updates to all parties that participated in the Main Post Update consultation in order to share progress on the projects covered by the PA-MPU, in addition to other items of interest in the Main Post. Since 2008, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, Federal Highways Administration and Caltrans have overseen the Doyle Drive replacement project, which is in the process of replacing the original 1937 freeway with an at-grade parkway. Throughout 2013, Trust planning and compliance staff supported efforts to implement the Built Environment Treatment Plan (BETP), a product of the 2008 Doyle Drive PA that provides measures to resolve adverse effects brought about by the project. The BETP is in use by the public-private-partnership (P3) entity that is responsible for the second phase of construction on the project. The P3 entity continued its design work in 2013, while also advancing large-scale construction on the Battery and Main Post Tunnels, northbound High Viaduct, utility relocation and other infrastructure upgrades. In May, working from a detailed move and storage plan, contractors removed building 201 (Quartermaster warehouse, 1896) from its 1937 foundation (having been moved once before for the construction of the original Doyle Drive) and relocated it to a temporary storage location at the north edge of the Main Post. Over the course of 2014 the Trust will work with the P3 entity and other project partners to plan for its return to Halleck Street and full rehabilitation, following completion of the Main Post Tunnels. There building 201 will continue to hold the western edge of Halleck Street, and enjoy a new use as a seismically

iv

strengthened, fully upgraded and sensitively rehabilitated public-serving venue. Work will continue on the Doyle Drive project throughout 2014, with a likely completion date of 2016. The multi-year, $15 million rehabilitation of the Officers’ Club at the Main Post (building 50, portions built ca. 1810, with major renovations in 1934 and 1972) continued throughout 2013, with a projected completion of base building work by early 2014. Initiated in 2011, the project includes a full roof replacement, removal of non-historic portions of the building, re-establishment of the Portola Courtyard, and comprehensive conservation and seismic strengthening of the adobe portions of the building. Over the course of the year, the Trust hosted several public-facing events and a year-long exhibit in building 103 focused on design and planning for interpretive displays in the building. In 2013 the Trust completed schematic plans for the exhibit design and in 2014 will fabricate and install them ahead of an opening ceremony later in the year. The Trust has maintained its ongoing collaboration with National Preservation Institute (NPI) and the California Preservation Foundation (CPF) for educational programming and professional development. In June, the Trust collaborated with CPF on a workshop covering recent updates to the California Historic Building Code as well as fire, accessibility and other codes that affect historic preservation projects. Trust staff planned logistics and assisted in content delivery, using Presidio projects as illustrative examples. For NPI, the Trust hosted and staff attended an Introduction to Section 106 course in May and a class on “Identification and Management of Cultural Places,” in October. These activities complemented those of Trust preservation staff’s speaking engagements at four national events over the course of the year.

In addition to the National Trust/ACHP award, the Trust was honored by the recognition the California Preservation Foundation bestowed on our 2012 Main Post Cultural Landscape Report. Recipient of a 2013 Preservation Design Award for cultural resource reports, the CLR was produced in collaboration with RHAA Architects, and a product of the Main Post Update consultation process. It has guided decision-making in the Main Post since its release, and continues to deliver valuable direction for projects planned in 2014 and beyond.

Thank you for your contributions to the Trust’s historic preservation program, and the support you’ve provided this year as in years past. If you have any questions, please contact me at (415) 561-2758 or rthomson@presidiotrust.gov. A copy of this annual report has been placed in the Presidio Trust Library and on our website and is available for interested persons and members of the public who wish to provide comments to the ACHP and SHPO, as well as the Trust. Sincerely, Rob Thomson Deputy Federal Preservation Officer cc: Anthony Veerkamp, NTHP Gary Widman, PHA

v

PRESIDIO TRUST 2013 ANNUAL REPORT

OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Table of Contents

Cover Letter .................................................................................................................. i Exhibits Exhibit A Presidio Trust Programmatic Agreement ................................................. 1 Exhibit B Presidio Trust NHPA Compliance Review (N2) Process Overview ...... 22 Exhibit C Project Review per the PTPA ................................................................. 24 Exhibit D Archaeological Research, Projects, and Program Highlights ................. 47 Exhibit E National Register Evaluations ................................................................ 51 Exhibit F Consultation under Stipulation X............................................................ 53 Exhibit G Multi-Agency Consultation Projects ....................................................... 54 Exhibit H Summary of Tax Credit Projects ............................................................. 61 Exhibit I Internal Preservation/Rehabilitation Projects ......................................... 62 Exhibit J Tenant Preservation/Rehabilitation Projects ........................................... 71 Exhibit K Personnel Training, Development, and Contacts .................................... 74 Exhibit L Public Outreach ....................................................................................... 76 Appendices Appendix A N2 Team Resumes Appendix B N2 Screening Form (blank) Appendix C N2 Flow Chart Appendix D Main Post Update Programmatic Agreement Appendix E List of Acronyms Appendix F Archaeological Management Assessments/Plans: AMA/IP YMCA Reach AMA Barnard Avenue Protected Range AMA Lead in Soil Remediation at buildings 40, 41, 45, 49 & 50 AMA Lead in Soil Remediation at building 95 AMP Lead in Soil Remediation at building 95 AMA Building 637 Area Remediation

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

AMONG THE PRESIDIO TRUST, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION,

AND THE CALIFORNIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER REGARDING THE PRESIDIO TRUST IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

AND VARIOUS OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES

FOR AREA “B” OF THE PRESIDIO OF SAN FRANCISCO, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

WHEREAS, the Presidio Trust (the Trust), pursuant to the Presidio Trust Act, Title I of Public Law 104-333, was established as a wholly owned government corporation to manage a portion of the Presidio of San Francisco (Presidio); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Law 104-333, administrative jurisdiction was transferred to the Trust on July 1, 1998 for approximately 80 percent of the Presidio that was depicted as Area B on the map entitled “Presidio Trust Number 1,” dated December 7, 1995, as such may be amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, the remaining area of the Presidio was depicted as Area A on said map and administrative jurisdiction for Area A remains with the National Park Service (NPS); and WHEREAS, the entire Presidio remains a part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), is a designated National Historic Landmark District (NHLD), is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NR), contains prehistoric archaeological sites, and historic archaeological resources, buildings, structures, objects, zones, and cultural landscapes representing 218 years of military history; and WHEREAS, the Trust, in order to meet its Congressionally mandated requirement of preserving the Presidio as a sustainable National Park within the GGNRA by the year 2013, carries out a variety of undertakings, including but not limited to maintenance, rehabilitation, repair, moving, interim and long-term leasing, construction and demolition of buildings, structures, and roads, and work regarding grounds and associated landscaping within Area "B" of the Presidio; and WHEREAS, the Trust has determined that these undertakings may have an effect upon properties included in or eligible for the NR, including properties that contribute to the NHLD and has notified the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with 36 CFR 800.10(c); and WHEREAS, the Trust has consulted with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and NPS; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14 (b)(2), which implements Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the entities listed above have been invited to sign this Programmatic Agreement (PA); and WHEREAS, the Trust has identified the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Fort Point and Presidio Historical Association as consulting parties and has invited them to concur in this PA; and WHEREAS, the Trust has made a good faith effort to locate federally recognized Indian tribes that may attach religious and cultural significance to properties under the administrative jurisdiction of the Trust or with which the Trust could consult under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA); and the Trust has determined that there are no such federally recognized tribes; and WHEREAS, ACHP regulations encourage federal agencies to use to the extent possible existing agency procedures and mechanisms (including mechanisms under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)) to fulfill their consultation requirements; and

1

WHEREAS, the NEPA compliance process enables public participation at a very early stage in the planning process for undertakings that may have an adverse effect under the NHPA; and

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

WHEREAS, the Trust will use its NEPA public participation procedures, analysis and review to meet the requirements of both NEPA and NHPA in a timely and efficient manner; and WHEREAS, the Presidio Trust Implementation Plan (PTIP) is a comprehensive programmatic plan being developed by the Trust to guide the management of Area B; and WHEREAS, the Trust has conducted a series of public meetings and prepared and circulated a draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding the proposed PTIP; and WHEREAS, that DEIS contained a draft copy of this PA and was also sent to interested groups and individuals and was the subject of consultation among the parties to this document; and WHEREAS, the undertakings contemplated under the PTIP will be within the scope of this PA; NOW, THEREFORE, the Trust, NPS, SHPO, and ACHP agree that the Trust will carry out the undertakings that are within the scope of this PA in accordance with the following stipulations to satisfy the Trust’s responsibilities under Section 106 and Section 110(f) of the NHPA.

STIPULATIONS The Trust shall ensure that the following measures are carried out: I. APPLICABILITY This PA applies to all undertakings proposed within Area B under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of the Trust including undertakings proposed by the Trust's permittees, and tenants. However, demolition, new construction, and the execution of leases associated with such new construction at the 60 acre Letterman Complex shall be governed by "The Programmatic Agreement Among the Presidio Trust, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the National Park Service and the California State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Deconstruction, New Construction, and the Execution of Associated Leases at The Letterman Complex, Presidio of San Francisco, California.” This PA does not apply to undertakings of NPS within Area A or the Department of Veterans Affairs at the National Cemetery all located within the boundaries of the Presidio. Before the Trust's final approval of any project, or any construction activities, or any irrevocable commitment by the Trust for construction, repairs, maintenance, rehabilitation, moving or demolition covered by this PA, all provisions required hereunder must be completed. For purposes of this PA, historic properties are those properties either included in the 1985 Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) report or designated as contributing to the NHLD by the May 1993 NHLD update and any other properties identified pursuant to Stipulation VI. below. II. POLICY The Trust shall manage and preserve the integrity of that portion of the NHLD in Area B through planning, research and specific undertakings consistent with good historic preservation management and stewardship, the goals of the NHPA and related regulations, standards, and guidelines. These efforts are, and will remain, in compliance with the applicable provisions of the NHPA and the Presidio Trust Act. III. PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS A. The Trust’s Federal Preservation Officer (FPO) shall be responsible for coordination of the preservation program and implementation of the terms of this PA. The agency official designated as the Trust’s FPO shall meet the requirements for that position as defined in “The Secretary of the Interior’s

2

Standards and Guidelines for Federal Agency Historic Preservation Programs Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act.”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

B. All work pursuant to this PA regarding historic buildings and structures will be reviewed by, or under the supervision of, a person having five years or more experience in historic preservation and meeting the professional qualifications for Historian, Architectural Historian or Historic Architect included in “The Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards.” C. All work pursuant to this PA regarding archaeological resources will be carried out by or under the supervision of a Registered Professional Archaeologist having five years or more experience in prehistoric or historic archaeology and meeting the professional qualifications for Archaeologist included in “Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines.” D. All analyses to determine if an undertaking falls under Appendix A and therefore requires no further review will be carried out by persons who meet the standards set forth above in this Stipulation III. All such persons are deemed for purposes of this PA as “qualified personnel” under the standards and guidelines cited above. IV. PERSONNEL TRAINING A. The Trust shall continue to provide appropriate training to personnel involved in the maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of historic buildings, structures, and housing units, and for all personnel responsible for making decisions regarding maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation. The Trust shall utilize specialized crafts training programs in practical application of “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.” In addition, the Trust will provide training in conservation technology as applied to historic structures and archaeological sites. B. The Trust shall develop and implement an in-house training program to advise Trust personnel of this PA and procedures, techniques, and related matters regarding the preservation of the historic properties located within Area B. The scope of training and the schedule for its implementation will be submitted as part of the annual report to all parties in accordance with Stipulation XXI. below. V. AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS The Trust will delineate the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for all proposed operations and maintenance undertakings covered by the PA. For all other proposed undertakings, the Trust shall consult with SHPO to delineate the APE. VI. IDENTIFICATION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES A. Numerous surveys and evaluations have been conducted to identify NR eligible and NHLD contributing properties for the entire Presidio landmark district, regardless of administrative jurisdiction, including the 1993 NHLD update. As necessary to implement this PA, the Trust will determine if there are additional properties in Area B not previously listed or determined eligible for listing on the NR or as contributors to the NHLD. Evaluation of buildings or structures which may become 50 years old or may have achieved exceptional significance while this PA is in effect shall be conducted within the framework of the “Statewide Historic Buildings and Structures Inventory, Department of Defense Installations, State of California, Volumes 1-3” and the “National Register of Historic Places Registration Forms for the Presidio of San Francisco National Historic Landmark District” (1993). B. If a property in Area B that was not previously listed or determined eligible for listing on the NR is determined by the Trust to be eligible, the Trust shall treat that property as eligible for purposes of this PA. Such determination requires no SHPO review. Any such determinations will be documented in accordance with Stipulation XXI. below.

3

C. If the Trust determines that a property not previously listed or evaluated is ineligible for the NR, and the Trust and NPS agree that the property is ineligible, then the property shall be ineligible for purposes of this PA. If the Trust and NPS disagree about a property the Trust has determined ineligible, the Trust will request an opinion from the SHPO which shall be rendered within 15 days of receiving the Trust’s request. If the Trust does not agree with the SHPO’s opinion, the Trust shall submit the matter to the Keeper of the National Register in accordance with 36 CFR Part 63.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

D. Should a concurring party to this PA or a member of the public believe that a property found ineligible under this stipulation is eligible for the NR, that person may contact the Keeper of the National Register and request a determination of eligibility under 36 CFR 63.4. E. The Trust shall evaluate, or cause to be evaluated, the significance of and apply NR criteria to archaeological properties that have not previously been evaluated for the NR or determined eligible for listing according to 36 CFR Section 800.4(c). VII. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS A. Categories of Undertakings for Review. This PA provides a framework for reviewing the following categories of undertakings: 1. Undertakings that are repetitive and low impact in nature. 2. Undertakings that relate to the ongoing operation and maintenance of the Presidio but that have minimal or low potential for affecting historic properties. 3. Undertakings that are future planning documents (including possible district-level plans, issue oriented plans, and site-specific design guidelines), and demolition of historic properties or new construction that may have an adverse effect on historic properties when proposed pursuant to such future planning documents. 4. Demolition or new construction, when not proposed pursuant to future planning documents, and that may have an adverse effect on historic properties. B. Review Process. 1. Undertakings belonging to Category A.1. are listed in Appendix A to this PA. It is explicitly agreed by the parties that those repetitive low impact activities do not affect historic properties and therefore may be undertaken with no further review or documentation. 2. Undertakings belonging to Category A.2. shall be reviewed according to the following procedures: a. The responsible Trust office shall submit the proposed undertaking to the FPO for review and shall consult the FPO regarding the APE for the undertaking. b. The FPO shall review the undertaking to ensure that identification and evaluation of historic properties in the APE has been completed according to Stipulation VI. and that adequate information has been compiled to identify and evaluate the effects of the proposed undertaking on historic properties. c. The FPO shall consult as necessary other staff qualified under Stipulation III.

d. The FPO shall insure that recovery of archaeological data deemed to be necessary by the Supervisory Trust Archaeologist is based on an Archaeological Research Design prepared by personnel qualified under Stipulation III. C.

e. The FPO shall apply the criteria of 36 CFR 800.5 to the proposed undertaking.

4

f. No Historic Properties Affected or No Adverse Effect. If the above process results in the FPO’s finding that no historic properties are affected by the proposed undertaking or that the proposal will have no adverse effect on historic properties, the FPO will document that finding in the undertaking’s administrative record, insure that the finding is included within the report required by Stipulation XXI, and make the finding available upon request to any party or the public. Absent objection by any party or member of the public who has requested a copy of the finding, the undertaking may proceed without further review by the ACHP, SHPO, or NPS. The Trust will address objections made pursuant to this paragraph in accordance with Stipulation XVIII.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

g. Adverse Effect.

i. If the FPO finds a proposed undertaking will result in an adverse effect, the Trust may consult with the NPS to determine if the adverse effect may be avoided. Where the Trust and NPS agree on how to avoid such adverse effect, they shall document their agreement and such agreement shall be included by the FPO in the report pursuant to Stipulation XXI. Implementation of the undertaking in accordance with the documented agreement shall be deemed to be resolution of the adverse effect.

ii. If the FPO finds the proposed undertaking will result in an adverse effect and consults with NPS but fails to reach agreement, or if the FPO chooses not to consult with NPS pursuant to paragraph VII.B.2.g.i. above, then the FPO shall consult with ACHP, SHPO and the concurring parties to resolve the adverse effect in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6.

3. Undertakings belonging to category A.3. shall be reviewed pursuant to Stipulations IX., X., and XI. below. 4. Undertakings belonging to category A. 4. shall be reviewed pursuant to Stipulations IX. B. and IX. C. C. Modification of a Reviewed Project. If after completion of an undertaking’s review pursuant to this stipulation or if during the implementation of any previously reviewed project pursuant to this stipulation, the Trust finds it necessary to modify the project scope or construction documents, the FPO or a designated qualified person under Stipulation III. shall review the proposed modification under the process contained in Stipulation VII. B. above. VIII. SALVAGE AND SUSTAINABILITY If an historic property will be demolished, the Trust’s qualified personnel will conduct a documented inspection to identify architectural elements and objects that may be reused in rehabilitating similar historic structures, or that may be preserved in a museum archival collection. IX. PRESIDIO TRUST IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The Presidio Trust Implementation Plan (PTIP) is a programmatic document that presents a range of preferred land uses, PTIP Planning Principles (Principles) and Planning District Guidelines (PDG) for designated planning districts within Area B of the Presidio. The Principles and PDG conform to "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings" (1995) (Standards). Intended as a policy framework to guide the Trust’s future activities, the PTIP does not specify treatments for individual buildings, or identify specific areas for new construction. Instead, the PTIP envisions further project-specific and/or district-level planning prior to building demolition or new construction with the potential to adversely affect historic properties. Undertakings proposed under the PTIP other than those discussed below in Paragraphs A., B., or C. will be subject to consultation pursuant to Stipulation VII. For the undertakings proposed under the PTIP and discussed below, Section 106 compliance shall be achieved as follows:

5

A. The Trust FPO shall seek public input and shall consult with NPS, SHPO, ACHP, and the concurring parties regarding the development of future planning documents, including possible district-level plans (e.g., Fort Scott), issue-oriented plans (e.g., Recreation and Open Space), and site-specific design guidelines or other plans in accordance with Stipulation X. below.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

B. The Trust FPO shall consult with the NPS, SHPO, ACHP, and the concurring parties pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5 regarding any proposed demolition of an historic property within Area B other than that proposed as part of a plan for which the consultation process has occurred pursuant to Stipulation X. below. C. The Trust FPO shall consult with the NPS, SHPO, ACHP, and the concurring parties pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5 regarding any proposed new construction that may have an adverse effect on historic properties, except where such new construction is proposed as part of a plan for which consultation has occurred pursuant to Stipulation X. below. X. REVIEW OF FUTURE PLANNING DOCUMENTS A. The Trust will submit to all signatory parties and concurring parties for review and comment, a consultation package for future planning documents, including but not limited to district-level plans (e.g., Ft. Scott), issue oriented plans (e.g., Recreation and Open Space), and site specific guidelines or other implementation plans. These draft planning documents and a request for consultation will be submitted early in the planning process (e.g., during public scoping) and will be supplemented at a later date by written comments on the design guidelines or draft plans received from the public, and the Trust’s record of commentary from the public planning session(s). The Trust shall ensure that future planning documents conform to the Standards, the Principles, and any applicable PDG to the maximum extent feasible. B. Twenty-one days following the deadline for receipt of public comments, a consultation meeting will be held, in person or by telephone, with NPS, SHPO, ACHP, and the Trust to discuss the draft planning documents and to seek a consensus among the signatory parties that the draft planning documents conform to the Standards, Principles and any applicable PDG to the maximum extent feasible. The Trust will notify concurring parties within three days of scheduling this consultation meeting, and the concurring parties may submit written comments within 15 days of notification for the consideration of the signatory parties at the consultation meeting. In seeking a consensus regarding the draft planning documents, the signatory parties shall consider comments received from the public pursuant to Paragraph A. above and from the concurring parties pursuant to this paragraph. If no consensus is reached at the conclusion of the consultation meeting, the Trust will proceed in accordance with Paragraph E. of this stipulation. C. The Trust will distribute to the NPS, SHPO, and ACHP for comment a Final Draft Document (FDD) reflecting the consensus reached pursuant to Paragraph B. of this stipulation. The signatory parties will have 30 calendar days following the date of receipt to provide written comments to the Trust regarding changes, if any, to cause the FDD to reflect the consensus reached pursuant to Paragraph B. of this stipulation. D. If the Trust modifies the FDD in accordance with NPS, SHPO, and ACHP comments received, the Trust may finalize the FDD and will immediately provide each of the other parties with a copy of the FDD. The FDD will not be subject to further review. E. Should the Trust decide not to modify the FDD in accordance with any NPS, SHPO, or ACHP comments regarding conformity to the maximum extent feasible with the Standards, Principles, and any applicable PDG, or if a consensus on the draft planning documents is not reached pursuant to Paragraph B. of this stipulation, the Trust will promptly notify the signatory parties and the concurring parties in writing of the Trust’s decision or of the lack of consensus, include documentation that explains the basis for the Trust’s decision or summarizes the reasons for the lack of consensus, and immediately initiate consultation with NPS, SHPO, and ACHP to address unresolved issues. Within 15 days of notification, the concurring parties may submit written comments for the signatory parties' consideration during this consultation. The

6

time frame for this consultation shall not exceed 30 calendar days from the date of the Trust’s written notification. If the issues pertaining to the Trust’s decision are partially or fully resolved or a consensus is reached within this time frame, then the FDD shall be modified, if necessary, by the Trust in accordance with the resolution. Thereupon, the Trust may proceed in accordance with Paragraphs C. or D. of this stipulation, as applicable. If the issues pertaining to the Trust’s decision are not fully resolved or a consensus is not reached within this time frame, the Trust will forward all documentation relevant to the dispute to the ACHP for response within 30 calendar days in accordance with Stipulation XVIII. below governing the resolution of objections.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

F. Failure of NPS, SHPO, ACHP, or the concurring parties to comment within the time frames established by this stipulation or within timeframes otherwise agreed to by those parties on any document submitted for review pursuant to this stipulation will be deemed a waiver of the opportunity to comment, and the Trust may proceed without considering the comment(s) that might otherwise have been made. However, the Trust shall consider the reasonable written request of any signatory party for a modification of the timeframes established by this Stipulation. XI. REVIEW OF NEW CONSTRUCTION FOLLOWING FUTURE PLANNING A. Where new construction is proposed under planning documents developed pursuant to Stipulation X. above, the Trust will ensure that all design and construction documents conform to the contents of applicable planning documents, and that identified measures to address adverse effects are included in the design and construction documents and committed to as part of the project implementation. B. The Trust's determination that design and construction documents conform to the planning documents reviewed in accordance with Stipulation X. above shall be documented in the project's administrative record and in the report developed in accordance with Stipulation XXI. Where changes to the project are required to ensure conformity, these changes shall also be documented in writing. XII. ARCHAEOLOGY A. The treatment of archaeological properties shall be handled in accordance with the terms of an Archaeological Management Assessment and Monitoring Program (AMA/MP) that is prepared for individual undertakings or groups of related undertakings. This will ensure that all planned undertakings will be reviewed by a qualified archaeologist prior to final design and/or approval. In addition to the AMA/MP, an archaeological research design will be prepared for any archaeological investigations that include testing for NR eligibility or test excavations or data recovery from prehistoric or historic sites that are known to be NR eligible or are listed as contributors to the NHLD. The Trust’s management of archaeological properties will be reviewed annually in accordance with Stipulation XXI. B. Ground disturbing maintenance activities and construction projects will be closely observed in the vicinity of sensitive archaeological areas to discover, document, protect, and manage the archaeological record of the Presidio. During the planning process for such projects, an AMA/MP shall be prepared to determine whether archival research, subsurface coring or trenching, and/or test excavations are required prior to ground disturbance. Archaeological monitoring is appropriate in areas of predicted archaeological sensitivity or for sampling purposes in areas that are not considered sensitive when the natural ground surface is obscured by paving or fill, or in other instances where a pedestrian survey or archaeological testing cannot reasonably be accomplished. Any required archaeological monitoring shall be implemented in accordance with an AMA/MP prepared by qualified personnel. If historic properties are discovered during implementation of an undertaking, a detailed report shall be prepared. Large-scale ground disturbing activities shall be monitored in accordance with an AMA/MP. Should circumstances arise where the Trust cannot address archaeological concerns in a manner consistent with the AMA/MP, the Trust shall notify the SHPO. C. The Trust anticipates that previously unidentified subsurface historic properties may be encountered within the NHLD boundary due to the placement of fill over some of the historic marsh areas, historic

7

landfill depositions, and other modifications to the land over 218 years of military occupation. The Trust will maintain an archaeological grid map and database of archaeological information for the Presidio, in cooperation with NPS. The map will also identify those areas where additional research and inventory are required during future project planning phases.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

D. The Trust will continue its policy of requiring all excavation permits to undergo archaeological review by qualified personnel, as defined in Stipulation III., prior to initiation of the requested activity. E. The Trust will prepare an Archaeological Management Plan (AMP) for the Spanish Colonial site known as “El Presidio de San Francisco.” The AMP will contain an inventory and evaluation of archival, architectural and archaeological features associated with this site, identify the likely presence of other significant features in the area, describe strategies for maintaining the site, contain standard operating procedures, establish programs to increase public awareness of this archaeological resource, recover data of archaeological significance, and provide for curation of archaeological collections and associated records. The AMP will be subject to peer review by NPS, SHPO, the concurring parties and if deemed necessary by the Trust, other qualified personnel. The draft AMP will be completed not later than 24 months after execution of this PA. F. All records associated with excavations and excavated materials not subject to NAGPRA that are deemed important for preservation will be accessioned, catalogued, and managed in accordance with 36 CFR Part 79, “Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Collections.” XIII. DISCOVERIES A. If it appears that an undertaking will affect a previously unidentified property that may be eligible for inclusion in the NR, or that may contribute to the NHLD, or affect a known historic property in an unanticipated manner, the Trust will stop any potentially harmful activities in the vicinity of the discovery and take all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize harm to the property until it concludes consultation with the SHPO. B. If a discovered property has not previously been included in or determined eligible for the NR and provisions for its treatment are not contained in an approved research design or AMA/MP, the Trust may assume that the property is eligible for purposes of this PA. The Trust will notify NPS and SHPO at the earliest possible time and consult to develop actions that will take the effects of the undertaking into account. The Trust will notify the SHPO of any time constraints, and the Trust and the SHPO will mutually agree upon timeframes for this consultation but not to exceed 30 days. If treatment of the discovery is not included in an approved research design or AMA/MP, the Trust will develop written recommendations reflecting its consultation with NPS and SHPO and as necessary, will present a plan and schedule to implement these recommendations. XIV. REHABILITATION AND INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT PROJECTS A. For purposes of this PA, Section 106 consultation and review of rehabilitation plans for compliance with “The Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties for Rehabilitation and Investment Tax Credit Projects” shall be accomplished within the Part I and Part II Certification Process as delineated in 36 CFR Part 67. Responsibilities and processes for this certification will be defined by terms of an agreement between the Trust and NPS. B. If a Trust tenant submits a Part II Certification Application without conditions from NPS, it shall be deemed to conform to the Standards referenced in Stipulation XIV. A. above. The undertaking will require no further review. If the Part II Certification Application is approved with conditions, the Trust shall ensure that the project documents are modified to comply with the conditions, but will not subject the application to any further review. Neither the Trust nor the tenant shall make any irrevocable commitment regarding project design until Part II Certification has been completed by NPS.

8

C. If a Trust tenant is denied Part II Certification or is unable to meet conditions for such certification, the provisions of Stipulation VII. shall apply.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

XV. PERMITS, LEASES AND OTHER AGREEMENTS Undertakings may also be permits, leases, or other agreements issued by the Trust and shall be subject to the same review as other Trust undertakings. The Trust shall provide for identification and treatment of historic properties in a manner that meets guidelines and standards set forth in the stipulations of this PA. XVI. EMERGENCY ACTIONS A. In the event that an emergency occurs at the Presidio that affects historic properties, the Trust may take actions without consultation to stabilize any involved historic properties and prevent further damage within 30 days from the termination of the emergency or longer with approval of the signatory parties. Where possible, such emergency measures will be undertaken in a manner that does not foreclose future preservation or restoration, with on-site monitoring by qualified personnel, and advance telephonic notification of NPS and SHPO. B. Emergency response work will be conducted in a manner to avoid or minimize effects on historic properties. Should historic properties be discovered during emergency repair or response activity, work in the immediate area of the property will cease if the Trust determines that a work stoppage at the site will not impede emergency response activities. The Trust will advise NPS and SHPO by telephone of the emergency, the steps being taken to address the emergency, the discovered property and its apparent significance, and a description of the emergency work and potential effects on the discovered property. C. Within 30 days following this notification, the Trust will provide the SHPO with a written report documenting the actions taken to minimize effects, the work's present status, the planned treatment of the property, and the condition of any other properties encountered as post-review discoveries. This action will be noted in the report developed in accordance with Stipulation XXI. below. XVII. NATURAL DISASTERS A. In the event of a natural disaster, the Trust shall undertake emergency actions consistent with the principles underlying this PA to stabilize historic properties and prevent further damage without SHPO consultation. Where possible, such emergency measures will be undertaken in a manner that does not foreclose future preservation or restoration. The Trust will immediately notify NPS and within 5 days of when telephone communications are re-established consult with SHPO on all emergency measures taken that impacted on or will impact on historic properties. Permanent repairs to historic properties beyond the scope of emergency repairs are not authorized by this stipulation. B. This stipulation does not apply to undertakings that will be implemented more than 30 days after the disaster terminates. Such undertakings shall be reviewed in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800 unless they are covered by other stipulations in this PA. XVIII. RESOLVING OBJECTIONS A. Should any signatory party or concurring party object in writing to the Trust regarding the manner in which the terms of this PA are carried out, to any action carried out or proposed with respect to the implementation of this PA, or to any documentation prepared in accordance with and subject to the terms of this PA, the Trust shall consult with the objecting party to resolve this objection. If after initiating such consultation the Trust determines that the objection cannot be resolved within 15 days through such consultation, the Trust shall forward all documentation relevant to the objection to the ACHP including the Trust’s proposed response to the objection. Within 15 calendar days after receipt of all pertinent documentation the ACHP shall exercise one of the following options:

9

1. Advise the Trust that the ACHP concurs in the Trust's proposed response to the objection, whereupon the Trust will respond to the objection accordingly;

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

2. Provide the Trust with recommendations, which the Trust shall take into account in reaching a final decision regarding its response to the objection; or

3. Notify the Trust that the objection will be referred for formal comment in accordance with 36 CFR 800.7(c).

B. Should the ACHP not exercise one of the above options within 15 calendar days after receipt of the pertinent documentation from the Trust, the Trust may assume the ACHP's concurrence in its proposed response to the objection. C. The Trust shall take into account any ACHP recommendation or comment provided in accordance with this stipulation with reference only to the subject of the objection; the Trust's responsibility to carry out all actions under this PA that are not the subject of objection shall remain unchanged. The Trust shall notify the other parties of its decision within 15 days. D. At any time during implementation of any stipulation in this PA, should an objection to its manner of implementation be raised by any member of the public, the Trust shall notify the parties to this PA and consult with the objecting member of the public, the ACHP and the SHPO to resolve the objection within 21 calendar days. If the Trust is unable to resolve an objection, the Trust may refer the objection to the ACHP in accordance with Stipulation XVIII. A. above. XIX. AMENDMENTS AND TERMINATION A. If any signatory party or concurring party believes that this PA should be amended, that party shall immediately so notify and consult with the other parties for no more than 21 days to consider amendments to this PA. The parties may agree to a longer consultation period. This PA may be amended only upon the written agreement of all signatory parties. Amendments shall be executed in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6(c). B. This PA may be terminated unilaterally by the Trust. It may be terminated by agreement of any two signatory parties. The signatory parties proposing termination shall notify all parties to this PA explaining the reasons for the termination. Prior to termination, whether by the Trust or any other signatory parties, the signatory parties shall consult for no more than 21 days to consider alternatives that would avoid termination. The signatory parties may agree to a longer consultation period. Should such consultation fail, the signatory parties supporting termination may terminate this PA by so notifying all parties to this PA in writing. C. If this PA is terminated the Trust shall proceed in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800 Subpart B with regard to undertakings covered by this PA. XX. DEFINITIONS The definitions of terms appearing at 36 CFR 800.16 are incorporated by reference into this PA. XXI. REVIEW OF AGREEMENT A. On or before January 30th of each year so long as this PA is in effect, the Trust shall prepare and provide to all parties an Annual Report (Report) describing how the Trust is carrying out its responsibilities under this PA. The Trust shall ensure that the Report is made available to the public and that potentially interested persons and members of the public are invited to provide comments to the ACHP and SHPO as well as to the Trust. At the request of the ACHP or SHPO, the Trust shall supplement this process through meeting(s) to address comments and/or questions. The Report shall include, at a minimum:

10

1. A list of all undertakings reviewed under Stipulation VII. and a summary of Tax Credit projects as described in Stipulation XIV. above.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

2. Efforts to identify and/or evaluate potential historic properties, monitoring efforts, archaeological management assessments or research designs, and treatment of historic properties. 3. Reports of any training given pursuant to Stipulation IV. above, identification of current Trust points of contact, and notification of any historic preservation personnel changes. 4. Any recommendations to amend this PA or improve communications among the parties. B. The activities listed in Appendix A shall be reviewed as part of the Report at which time the signatory parties may modify the list by adding new activities or removing other activities without requiring amendment of the PA. Should the SHPO or ACHP object in writing to the Trust regarding the Report, the objection will be resolved pursuant to Stipulation XVIII. C. The SHPO and ACHP may monitor activities carried out pursuant to this PA, and the ACHP will review such activities if it deems necessary or is so requested. The Trust shall cooperate with the SHPO and the ACHP in carrying out their monitoring and review responsibilities. XXII. EFFECT OF THE PASSAGE OF TIME In any case where a party fails to comment or act within a time frame that is specified or is otherwise agreed upon by the parties, the Trust may thereafter immediately proceed in the matter at issue without further regard to comments or actions by that party. XXIII. DURATION This PA shall become effective upon execution by the Trust, the SHPO, and the ACHP and shall remain in effect until 2013, or unless terminated prior to that time in accordance with Stipulation XIX., or unless it is extended for an additional period of time by mutual written agreement of the signatory parties. XXIV. EXECUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION Execution and implementation of this Programmatic Agreement evidences that the Trust has satisfied its Section 106 and Section 110(f) responsibilities for all undertakings covered by this PA, including, but not limited to: PTIP, maintenance, rehabilitation, repair, moving, construction and deconstruction of buildings, structures and roads, and work regarding grounds and associated landscaping within the area of responsibility of the Trust. Execution and implementation of this PA also evidences that the Trust has afforded the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertakings and their effects on historic properties and that the Trust has taken into account the effects of the undertakings on historic properties. SIGNATORY PARTIES: THE PRESIDIO TRUST ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION BY: ________________________________ BY: ________________________________ TITLE: _____________________________ TITLE: _____________________________

11

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

31 32

CALIFORNIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER BY: ______________________________________________ TITLE: ___________________________________________

THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA BY: ______________________________________________ TITLE: ___________________________________________ CONCURRING PARTIES: NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION BY: _____________________________________________ TITLE: ___________________________________________ FORT POINT AND PRESIDIO HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION BY: _____________________________________________ TITLE: ___________________________________________

This is a true and correct copy of the final, signed version of the Programmatic Agreement. An executed copy is available for review in the Presidio Trust Library.

12

APPENDIX A - REPETITIVE OR LOW IMPACT ACTIVITIES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

The following classes of undertakings are exempt from further review or consultation under the terms of this PA. 1. Maintenance of contributing buildings which include:

a. Housekeeping, routine maintenance, building monitoring, and other such actions, as determined

appropriate by a preservation specialist, that do not alter historic fabric. b. Exterior painting to match existing color.

c. Interior painting to match existing color or consistent with approved residential paint palette (residential), or as approved by a preservation specialist for commercial buildings.

2. Maintenance operations for non-contributing buildings in an historic district, except excavations and borings in archaeologically sensitive areas. 3. Painting of non-contributing buildings (exterior and interior) to match existing color or to a color consistent with the Period of Significance with the approval of the Federal Preservation Officer. 4. Repair or replacement of roofs on historic and non-historic structures, when work matches existing material and design. 5. Regrading of terrain adjacent to a building to achieve positive water runoff in areas not designated as archaeologically sensitive or having vegetation which contributes to the cultural landscape. 6. Routine grounds maintenance such as grass cutting and treatment, maintenance of shrubs, and tree trimming provided these activities are consistent with the Vegetation Management Plan and preservation of the cultural landscape, or consistent with an approved Cultural Landscape Report and the Secretary of the Interiors Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. 7. Maintenance of existing roads or existing parking areas, including repaving and grading, within previously disturbed areas. 8. Rehabilitation, maintenance, or replacement of utility lines, transmission lines, or non-contributing fences or non-contributing walls within previously disturbed areas, outside of a known archaeological site. 9. Health and safety activities such as non-destructive testing for radon gas, asbestos, lead-based paint, lead pipes, and hazardous materials and wastes. 10. Conducting non-ground disturbing elements of the applicable Integrated Pest Management program for control of pests such as termites, insects, and rodents. 11. Maintenance of existing facilities that does not involve new or additional ground disturbance or alters contributing elements, including the cultural landscape. 12. Maintenance (that does not change the configuration or appearance of the existing facilities) of existing electronic communication sites involving no ground disturbance. 13. Drilling of test borings outside of known archaeological sites for water, slope stability, or detection of contaminants when continuous core samples are submitted to the archaeology lab. 14. Mitigation or abatement of hazardous materials that can be accomplished without impact to historic integrity or character-defining features limited to:

a. Removal of asbestos containing insulations from piping and duct work in open areas; b. Removal of damaged vinyl asbestos tile;

13

c. Carpeting over damaged vinyl asbestos tiles. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

15. Conducting exploratory testing in contributing buildings to expose and assess concealed structural conditions and/or to assess material capacities, when reviewed and monitored by a preservation specialist. This appendix may be revised with the written agreement of ACHP, SHPO, NPS, and the Trust without a revision being made to the underlying PA. Any such change will be documented in the Report described in Stipulation XXI. above.

14

AMENDMENTS TO:

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT AMONG THE PRESIDIO TRUST, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION,

AND THE CALIFORNIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER REGARDING THE PRESIDIO TRUST IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

AND VARIOUS OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES

FOR AREA “B” OF THE PRESIDIO OF SAN FRANCISCO, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

The above-titled Programmatic Agreement (PA) shall be amended as follows:

(1) Stipulation XIV of the PA shall be amended to read as follows:

“D. Undertakings involving historically functionally related properties that will be reviewed as part of the Certified Rehabilitation process under the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program shall be reviewed in accordance with the process set forth under Appendix B of this PA.”

(2) The following shall be included as Appendix B to the PA:

“Appendix B

Process Plan: Concurrent Implementation of Section 106 and

Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Program For Undertakings

Within Historically Functionally Related Properties

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 regulations require consideration of the cumulative effect of an undertaking, which may include a range of treatments or programs carried out on historic properties, including historic buildings, structures, districts, objects, landscapes, and archaeological sites. Projects to which the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives may be applied are qualified projects that the Secretary of the Interior designates as a certified rehabilitation of a certified historic building, structure, object, or landscape. For rehabilitation projects involving more than one certified historic structure where the structures are judged by the Secretary of the Interior to have been functionally related historically to serve an overall purpose, rehabilitation certification will be issued on the merits of the overall project rather than for each structure or individual component. This Process Plan, Appendix B, provides for concurrent NHPA Section 106 and Certified Rehabilitation review of undertakings including those proposed within “functionally related structures” to ensure that the overall project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (36 CFR 67) (the “Standards”). The purpose of the Process Plan is to ensure that rehabilitation of buildings or structures within a functionally related historical complex that will not be reviewed as part of the Certified Rehabilitation process meet the Standards. This assurance means that such lack of review alone will not cause the property being certified to lose its status as a certified rehabilitation.

15

A. Relationship to the Presidio Trust 2002 Programmatic Agreement (PTIP PA)

1. This Process Plan applies to all undertakings in Area B of the Presidio of San FranciscoNational Historic Landmark District proposed by tax incentive applicants (Applicant)including those within historically functionally related properties. Applicants includetenants and others who propose rehabilitation of historic properties within Area B underjurisdiction of the Presidio Trust (Trust).

2. This Process Plan defines responsibilities and processes for concurrent NHPA Section106 and Certified Rehabilitation review as required in Stipulation XIV(A) of the PTIPPA.

3. Undertakings that are not proposed by the entities identified above and are not subject tothis Process Plan will be reviewed in accordance with the measures set forth in the PTIPPA, or its successor agreements.

4. Unless restated or modified within this Appendix, the measures stipulated in the PTIP PAapply to undertakings reviewed through this Appendix.

B. Historically Functionally Related Property Designation

The National Park Service Office of Technical Preservation Services (NPS-TPS) designates Historically Functionally Related Properties (FRP) for the Secretary of the Interior. The Trust will delineate by means of a map or other graphic representation the FRP already determined by the NPS-TPS for all proposed undertakings covered by this Process Plan.

C. Professional Qualification Standards, as needed to satisfy assigned roles and responsibilities

1. Trust staff:a. The Trust’s Federal Preservation Officer (FPO) shall be responsible for

coordination of the preservation program and implementation of the terms of thisPA. The agency official designated as the Trust’s FPO shall meet therequirements for that position as defined in “The Secretary of the Interior’sStandards and Guidelines for Federal Agency Historic Preservation ProgramsPursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act.”

b. All work pursuant to this PA regarding historic buildings and structures will bereviewed by, or under the direct supervision of, a person having five years ormore qualifying experience in historic preservation and meeting the professionalqualifications for Historian, Architectural Historian or Historic Architectincluded in “The Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation ProfessionalQualification Standards.”

c. All work pursuant to this PA regarding archaeological resources will be carriedout by or under the direct supervision of a Registered Professional Archaeologisthaving five years or more qualifying experience in prehistoric or historicarchaeology and meeting the professional qualifications for Archaeologistincluded in “Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Secretary of the Interior’sStandards and Guidelines.”

2. The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) staff will, at a minimum, include anindividual who meets the “Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation ProfessionalQualification Standards.”

3. Consultants hired by Applicants will, at a minimum, meet the qualifications described inparagraphs C.1.b. and C.1.c. of this Process plan.

16

D. Undertaking Review Process

For the purposes of this Process Plan, Section 106 consultation and review of rehabilitation plans for compliance with the Standards on an undertaking for which historic preservation tax incentives are sought shall be accomplished within the Part 1 and Part 2 Certification Process as delineated in 36 CFR Part 67. Concurrent with the Applicant’s submission under the Certification Process, the Trust will, pursuant to Section 106, assess the effect of the undertaking, as a whole, on the individual structure or FRP. Design Review Committee approval of Part 2 and subsequent amendments will not be for compliance with the Standards. Rather, such review shall be to ensure conformance with codes, regulations, guidelines, and general design direction as described in the Tenant Handbook and other such descriptive materials adopted or produced by the Trust for Area B of the Presidio of San Francisco. As the federal agency with administrative jurisdiction for Area B, the Trust is the responsible agent for design consistency, conformance with building codes, life/safety and accessibility standards, conformance with sustainability guidelines and goals, and integration and operation of infrastructure systems such as electricity, water, and sewer.

1. The Applicant shall:a. Have access to and utilize staff or consultants which meet the Secretary of the

Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards for thedevelopment of the undertaking. The qualified staff will act on behalf of theApplicant in consultation between the Trust, the OHP, and NPS-TPS.

b. Ensure the undertaking conforms to the Standards in all aspects of the proposedundertaking. Develop rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, and maintenancedesigns for the undertaking in conformance with both the Standards and Trustguidance materials including the Tenant Handbook and other such written andverbal guidance to ensure conformance to Trust design and constructionstandards.

c. Prepare and submit applications for Incentives certification, Parts 1, 2, and 3.i. Prepare and submit the Part 1 Evaluation of Significance for the

individual structure or, where the structure is part of an FRP, prepare andsubmit the Part 1 for the entire FRP.

ii. Prepare and submit the Part 2 Description of Rehabilitation Work and thePart 3 Request for Certification of Completed Work for only the buildingor buildings proposed for rehabilitation by the Applicant within the FRP.

d. Submit the undertaking for review and approval by the Trust prior to submittingthe Part 1 and Part 2 applications.

i. Submit Part 1 for review and approval by Trust FPO prior to submittingto OHP.

ii. Submit Part 2 for review and approval by Trust’s Design ReviewCommittee prior to submitting to OHP. It should be noted that theTrust’s Design Review Committee approval does not guarantee approvalby OHP.

e. Submit for review and approval by the Trust’s Design Review Committee anyreview packages other than the Part 2 application as required by either the TenantHandbook or by a development agreement specific to the undertaking.

f. If the Applicant receives Part 2 Certification from OHP without conditions, therehabilitation described in the Part 2 application will be considered to conform tothe Standards.

g. If conditions are placed on the Part 2 Certification, the Applicant shall consultwith OHP to resolve those conditions. If the Applicant is unable to meet

17

conditions for such certification after consultation or should the Part 2 Certification be denied, the provisions of this Process Plan will be inapplicable, and the undertaking review process will be conducted pursuant to the measures described in the PTIP PA.

h. Applicant changes made to the undertaking after Part 2 Certification and prior toPart 3 Certification shall cause reopening of Certified Rehabilitation applicationand PTIP PA review. Applicant shall prepare and submit amendments to the Part2 application describing such changes for submission to the OHP.

i. Submit proposed amendments to the Trust’s Design Review Committeefor review and approval prior to submitting to OHP.

ii. Submit to OHP for Certification after Trust Design Review Committeeapproval.

i. Section 106 consultation will not be considered completed until the Part 3submission has been certified.

2. The Trust operating in its role as historic property owner and operating under theauthority of the PTIP PA shall:

a. Participate in all 106 and Certified Rehabilitation consultations regarding theundertaking.

b. Provide available research materials, reports, National Register forms, conditionassessments, the Tenant Handbook, design standards, and all such materials in itspossession that will assist the Applicant in designing its undertaking andcompleting the three parts of the Certified Rehabilitation application.

c. Prepare environmental review and associated Section 106 consultation, asnecessary, prior to submission for Certified Rehabilitation.

d. Provide guidance in Presidio design and construction standards as indicated inthe Tenant Handbook and other verbal and written guidance materials.

e. Provide guidance in the professional areas of architecture, engineering, fire andlife/safety, security, building construction, materials conservation, historicarchitecture, historic landscape architecture, archaeology, and history asappropriate.

f. Provide continuing review in the disciplines of historic architecture, historiclandscape architecture, and archaeology on historic building and landscaperehabilitation designs and advise the Applicant incrementally on revisions thatwould achieve compliance with the Standards.

g. Review and approval, within 15 days from receipt, Part 1 application by FPOprior to submission to OHP.

h. Review and approval, within 15 days from receipt, through the Design ReviewCommittee of Part 2 applications for conformance to Presidio standards andguidelines prior to submission to OHP for approval.

i. Prepare a letter to accompany the Part 1 application that indicates knowledge ofthe application and concurrence with its submission.

j. Consult with and advise the Applicant on revising the submission documents toconform to the Standards if the Part 2 Certification is approved with conditions.

k. Review and approval, within 15 days from receipt, through the Design ReviewCommittee before submission to OHP of amendments to the Part 2 applicationmade after its Certification .

l. Analyze the cumulative effect of all undertakings in an FRP and prepare astatement of effect on the cumulative effect to be reported in the Annual Reportrequired under Stipulation XXI of the PTIP PA.

m. Monitor the construction phase for compliance with any stipulations establishedthrough the Certified Rehabilitation process. Monitor the five (5) year recapture

18

period after the Applicant’s completion of the rehabilitation beginning from the date when the building or buildings associated with the Certified Rehabilitation is placed into service.

n. Provide consultation on all other undertakings on an individual structure orwithin an FRP through the PTIP PA and ensure consistent preservation treatmentthroughout the Presidio and the FRP.

o. Serve as point of contact with OHP and the Advisory Council on HistoricPreservation (ACHP) for all NHPA provisions and requirements.

3. OHP in a dual role for both Section 106 and Certified Rehabilitation review shall:a. Consult on environmental review documents, if any, prepared in advance of the

undertaking through Stipulation X of the PTIP PA.b. Serve as point of contact for Certified Rehabilitation review process.c. Provide Certified Rehabilitation application forms, regulations, information on

appropriate treatments of historic resources.d. Advise Applicant on rehabilitation designs and make site visits as required for

familiarity with the site.e. Review historic building rehabilitation designs under established application

process and make recommendations to the NPS-TPS as required under CertifiedRehabilitation regulations. The OHP staff will review, screen, and monitor theApplicant’s undertaking to ensure that rehabilitation work to the site is incompliance with the Standards.

f. Make certification recommendations to the NPS-TPS.g. Review amendments made to the undertaking after Part 2 Certification and prior

to Part 3 Certification for conformance to the Standards.h. Consult on undertakings, if any, on an individual structure or within an FRP that

the Trust FPO determines to require consultation through StipulationVII(B)(g)(ii), Stipulation IX(B), or Stipulation IX(C) of the PTIP PA.

i. Review Annual Report from the Trust for report on cumulative effects in anaffected FRP.

4. NPS-TPS, in their role as Certified Rehabilitation reviewer, shall:a. Determine an FRP when such exists.b. Review certification applications (Parts 1, 2, and 3) for conformance with

applicable standards and regulations, including the Standards.c. Establish Program Case Numbers for the undertaking application.d. Issue certification decisions in writing.e. Transmit copies of all decisions to the Internal Revenue Service.

E. Relationship to Other Plans and Agreements

To the extent such measures are not inconsistent with the terms in this Process Plan, the plan is subject to the measures stipulated in the PTIP PA which was signed in March of 2002 and amended in 2006, by the ACHP, the OHP, the National Park Service at Golden Gate National Recreation Area (NPS), and the Trust and concurred in by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Fort Point and Presidio Historical Association (now known as the Presidio Historical Association). Execution and implementation of the PTIP PA evidences the Trust’s compliance with Section 106 for the Presidio Trust Management Plan (PTMP). The PTMP establishes the guiding principles and planning and design guidelines for all programs, activities, operations, and undertakings within the Presidio of San Francisco National Historic Landmark District. Additional environmental planning may already exist or may be developed during the course of review through this Process Plan that may apply to the undertakings seeking historic preservation tax incentives.

19

F. Archaeology

1. The measures described in Stipulation XII Archaeology apply to all undertakingsreviewed through this Process Plan.

2. If the Applicant is required to contract for archaeological services to meet the measuresdescribed in Stipulation XII, the contracted archaeologist shall meet the qualificationstandards described in paragraph C.1.c. of this Process Plan.

3. Artifacts or materials recovered during excavation are the property of the Trust and shallat all times remain under control of the FPO. None of these materials may leave thePresidio without written consent, and with consent, only for special analyses or on loanfor exhibition. Treatment of these materials will be accomplished in accordance withprofessional guidelines for curation activities and in consultation with the FPO. Allmaterials/collections/artifacts will be evaluated for research potential and significance.Materials/collections/artifacts will be accessioned, cataloged, curated, and stored in apermanent facility meeting museum standards. All collections evaluation, curation, anddocumentation shall be performed by professionals in their field meeting nationalmuseum management standards.

G. Duration of Appendix B

This Process Plan shall become effective upon execution by the Trust, the State Historic Preservation Officer, the ACHP and the NPS and shall remain in effect until September 30, 2012, or unless terminated prior to that time in accordance with Stipulation XIX, "Amendments and Termination,” of the PTIP PA or unless it is extended for an additional period of time by mutual written agreement of the signatory parties.

20

H. Execution of Appendix B

Execution and implementation of this Process Plan evidences that the Trust has satisfied its Section 106 and Section 110(f) responsibilities for all undertakings covered by this Process Plan. Execution and implementation of this Process Plan also evidences that the Trust has afforded the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertakings and their effects on historic properties and that the Trust has taken into account the effects of the undertakings on historic properties.”

Per Stipulation XIX of the PA, the signatories agree to these amendments.

SIGNATORY PARTIES:

THE PRESIDIO TRUST

BY:______________________________________________

TITLE:___________________________________________

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

BY:______________________________________________

TITLE:___________________________________________

CALIFORNIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER

BY:______________________________________________

TITLE:___________________________________________

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE; GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

BY:______________________________________________

TITLE:___________________________________________

CONCURRING PARTIES:

NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION

BY:______________________________________________

TITLE:___________________________________________

PRESIDIO HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION

BY:______________________________________________

TITLE:___________________________________________

21

THE PRESIDIO TRUST N2 REVIEW PROCESS To achieve compliance with

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

N2 PROJECT REVIEW Determining whether NHPA applies to a project Under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Presidio Trust’s Programmatic Agreement (PTPA) with the National Park Service, State Office of Historic Preservation and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, prior to any undertaking, the Trust must “take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register.” (16 U.S.C. 470f) Determining whether NEPA applies to a project Under the Trust’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, any individual or group seeking “to demolish, construct, reconstruct, develop, preserve, rehabilitate, or restore real property within the Presidio Trust Area” is subject to NEPA review (§ 1010.3). PROJECT SCREENING FORM for NEPA and NHPA The Project Screening Form (Appendix B) is available on the TrustNet, the Presidio Trust’s (Trust) internal web site. The Trust compliance team uses the screening form for pre-review consultation, which helps to anticipate the potential for environmental impacts and adverse effects to a historic property that may result from proposed activities. Projects reviewed by the N2 team are those that are anticipated to receive a Categorical Exclusion and a Certificate of Compliance, which certify that there will not be an adverse effect to historic resources and that environmental impacts will not be significant. A flow chart in Appendix C provides a visual representation of the N2 process. Project managers are required to fill out a Project Screening Form for any activity that is subject to N2 review (based on assessment described above). The intent is to provide the resource specialists responsible for reviewing projects for NEPA and NHPA compliance with detailed information about project proposals prior to the N2 review meeting. The form has six information sections and 22 questions that address whether the potential for environmental impact or potential for adverse effect to historic property exists. The first part of the Project Screening Form summarizes specific project details, while the second part identifies potential effects. Part 2 of the screening form requires details about project-specific potential impacts on a wide range of resources, ranging from historic buildings to native plant communities. Upon receipt of the project proposals, the Historic Compliance Coordinator reviews the project proposal to determine the level of review required. Sometimes, consultation with only one or two resource specialists is required to certify that resources will not be affected. This level of review is known as “administrative review.” Complex or multi-phase projects (such as building rehabilitations) require full N2 committee review. An N2 submittal includes digital and hard copies of the screening form, along with attachments (usually drawings or maps), which must be submitted a week prior to the meeting. N2 MEETING Project managers may use the weekly N2 meeting to: 1) review their project at the scoping stage, in order to assist them in completing the proper documentation or, 2) present their project to the N2 team for comments on projects requiring a planning record and compliance documentation. N2 Meetings are held every Thursday at 10am, and agendas are distributed electronically to team members and presenters in advance of the meeting. Members of the signatory and concurring parties to the Programmatic Agreement

THE PRESIDIO TRUST N2 REVIEW PROCESS To achieve compliance with

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

may attend project review meetings and comment on projects under review. Project documents are also made available to the public in the Trust Library in building 103 (103 Montgomery Street). The Presidio Trust N2 Review Team is comprised of the following resource specialists: Archeologists: Eric Blind, Kari Jones Preservation Project Managers: Christina Wallace Environmental Remediation/Hydrology: Nina Larssen Forester: Peter Ehrlich Historical Architects: Rob Wallace, Chandler McCoy Integrated Pest Management Specialist: Christa Conforti Historic Landscape Architect/Cultural Landscape Specialist: Michael Lamb Natural Resources Specialist: Terri Thomas NEPA Compliance Manager: John Pelka NHPA Compliance/Preservation Specialists: Michelle Taylor Federal Preservation Officer: Craig Middleton Deputy Federal Preservation Officer: Rob Thomson Transportation Specialists: Mark Helmbrecht, Amy Marshall CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION The Categorical Exclusion Form is issued to the project manager as evidence of compliance with NEPA, but is not considered complete until all the conditions (for the purpose of avoiding any environmental impact) are met. A Categorical Exclusion is considered complete when all project conditions are signed off by the applicable team specialist or their designee. This documentation is generally required before going to Permitting. Some conditions apply to the construction period and are monitored and certified after permitting. When a project proposal is administratively reviewed, approval is given via email with a project approval number assigned in the N2 database. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The Certificate of Compliance is issued to the project manager as documentation that a project will not have an adverse effect to the historic properties of the National Historic Landmark District (NHLD). The Federal Preservation Officer or Deputy Federal Preservation Officer, with input from the specialists on the N2 review team can determine that a project 1) has no effect, 2) has no adverse effect or 3) has no adverse effect with stipulations. Stipulations constitute detailed requirements that will, when implemented, ensure that the project avoids any adverse effect(s) to historic properties. Stipulations must generally be met prior to implementation, unless specifically documented otherwise. The Historic Compliance Coordinator often continues correspondence to document that stipulations are followed. A Certificate of Compliance is considered complete once all stipulations are signed off by the project manager, and it is returned to the compliance department. When a project proposal is administratively reviewed, approval is given via email with a project approval number assigned in the N2 database. Documentation of a completed Certificate of Compliance or administrative approval is required before going to the Presidio Trust Permitting Department.

2013Annual Report for NHPA Compliance Activities per the Programmatic Agreement Among the Presidio Trust, National Park Service, the Advisor Council for Historic Preservation and the California State Historic Preservation Office for Operations and Maintenance in Area B of the Presidio of San Francisco.

Project Title 13-015 Building 1369 CAP Program Support Summary Building 1369, located in the Fort Scott district, is an unoccupied building that Project Building Use once housed the former indoor shooting range. This project includes some Project Manager: Genevieve Bantle exterior deferred maintenance repairs and minor alterations to accommodate the use as storage and tent drying facility for the Rob Hill Campground. The Submitted 1/4/2013 proposed interior modifications include the removal of an acoustical dropped Reviewed on: Administrative Review ceiling and the reversible modification of existing metal trusses to accommodate the drying of camping tents. The project scope addresses life- Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A safety deficiencies such as fire-code compliant exiting, signage and detection systems. Exterior improvements include removal of vegetation around the building,the repair of the front porch stairs, and repair of failing drainage elements such as downspouts. Project Title 13-016 Mt. Lake East Arm Wetland Restoration Summary The San Francisco Airport has given the Trust funding to create and enhance Project Vegetation Restoration wetland in the East Arm of Mountain Lake as partial mitigation for some Project Manager: Terri Thomas airport work. Wetland restoration will include enhancement of 0.40 acres of jurisdictional wetland and the creation of between 0.70 and 0.87 acres of Submitted 1/31/2013 freshwater wetland. To the greatest extent possible, project construction will Reviewed on: 2/21/2013 correspond with the remediation of Mt. Lake, and will likely need to be completed in coordination with that project, which will save on staging, create Certificate of Compliance Issued 3/4/2013 a shorter time of disruption to the public than doing the project at two different times, and enable completion of the Mountain Lake Enhancement Plan mostly at one time. The project will also integrate and expand on the West Pacific Trail Conceptual Plan and selected storm water Best Management Practices (BMPs) presented in the Storm Water Management Plan for Mountain Lake.

List of Projects Reviewed Though the N2 Process Under Stipulation VII.B.2 Project Title 13-017 Water Distribution Upgrades for Presidio Parkway, Various Locations Summary This project addresses deficiencies within the Trust’s water distribution system Project Infrastructure resulting from the Trust providing water service to the tunnel fire suppression Project Manager: Tom Mudd systems being constructed as part of the Presidio Parkway project. The project consists of upgrades in five locations within the existing distribution system: Submitted 1/31/2013 Ralston St./Battery Dynamite (replace 1,100 feet of existing with new pipe), Reviewed on: 2/7/2013 Lincoln Blvd. near Highway 101 crossing (replace 1,260 feet of existing with new pipe), Infantry Terrace (cross-connecting existing systems) and Battery Certificate of Compliance Issued Caulfield Rd (cross-connecting existing systems) and Washington Blvd. (cross- connecting existing systems). The new pipeline and cross-connections will be constructed within existing roadways using typical excavation methods – requiring a moveable work zone approximately 15 feet wide by 100 feet long to excavate, lay pipe and backfill in a continuous process along the alignment. The improvements are largely outside of archaeologically sensitive areas, forested or natural areas, remediation zones (except for possible lead in soil at Ralston St.) and trails. Any excess or non-reusable spoils will be disposed of off-site. Traffic controls will be required around the work areas. Each excavation will remain open for approximately 2 weeks, and total construction duration is anticipated to be 120 calendar days.

Project Title 13-018 2013 San Francisco Bay Area Susan G. Komen 3-Day™ Camp, Old Parade Ground, Main Post Summary The Susan G. Komen 3-Day™ intends to use the centrally-located Old Parade Project Special Events ground for its camp for up to 900 participants including crew members and Project Manager: Steve Overman staff beginning Friday, June 21, 2013. The 3-day event to help end breast cancer is part of a nationwide series that will begin in San Francisco and Submitted 1/24/2013 crisscross the country through 14 cities. The camp will include a dining tent, Reviewed on: 2/7/2013 hot showers, sleeping tents, evening entertainment, and various other activities. The event will require setting up temporary tents, light towers, Certificate of Compliance Issued portable toilets, kitchens, showers, tables, chairs, dumpsters and a command center. Recycling at the event will be mandatory with the goal of zero waste. The parade ground will be returned to the same condition as before the event following its conclusion.

List of Projects Reviewed Though the N2 Process Under Stipulation VII.B.2 Project Title 13-019 Building 34 Abatement & Demolition Summary Building 34 Graham Street, constructed in 1968, is an unoccupied two-story, Project Building Demolition concrete and masonry unit building with a full sub-grade basement. The building Project Manager: Tom Knapp is approximately 30,000 square feet and measures 211.5 feet by 50 feet. The building's primary Army-era function was a data processing center and office. It Submitted 1/7/2013 also served as the Trust's headquarters until 2012. Building 34 is Reviewed on: 2/28/2013 undistinguished due to its low-quality construction, utilitarian character, and inharmonious design with the 19th and early 20th century buildings that Certificate of Compliance Issued comprise the Main Post. The building does not contribute to the Presidio NHLD and in September 2012 it was determined individually ineligible for listing on the National Register; the California SHPO has concurred with this determination. Because building 34 does not conform to current seismic structural codes and standards, and is largely incompatible with surrounding earlier buildings, the Trust proposes to abate and demolish the building as contemplated in the Main Post Update. The Contractor will comply with the City of San Francisco’s waste diversion and recycling requirements and its noise ordinance. The site will be backfilled using Trust stockpiled soil or imported soil sampled and tested in accordance with the Presidio Trust soil management plan, and restored in the short term with appropriate low-impact landscaping.

List of Projects Reviewed Though the N2 Process Under Stipulation VII.B.2 Project Title 13-020 Rezanov and Concepción Argüello Statue Summary The United Humanitarian Mission (UHM), based in San Francisco and Project Miscellaneous established in 1998, is a non-profit organization dedicated to “improving Project Manager: Allison Stone society’s moral health by combating the loss of universal human values.” The UHM has made the Trust an unsolicited offer to commission a bronze statue Submitted 2/7/2013 that memorializes the intended marriage of Concepción Argüello and Nikolai Reviewed on: 2/28/2013 Petrovich Rezanov. The UHM proposal describes the statue as no greater than 9 feet high, 7 feet in length and 5 feet in width, set on a granite base, and Certificate of Compliance Issued located in the courtyard at the Chapel of Our Lady (45 Moraga Avenue). A PROJECT CANCELLED plaque with interpretative text would be placed at the base in Russian, Spanish, and English. As stated by the project sponsor, the statue would commemorate the “Spanish era of Presidio, and its dealings with other nations, (that is, Russia) who, in their time and in their way, were building Nueva Espana into what would later become California… The compelling story of Concepción Argüello and Nikolai Petrovich Rezanov is a beloved Russian, Spanish, Mexican and American legend. Symbolically, it represents San Francisco’s tradition of multiculturalism... It will celebrate San Francisco’s beginnings as a part of New Spain, as well as emphasizing America’s connection to Russia in this era of diplomatic ‘reset’.” The Trust Board of Directors will make the final decision on whether to accept or reject the statue in accordance with the Trust’s Art Policy and subject to review procedures set forth in the Trust’s Art Collections Manual. Note: Following the conclusion of the N2 meeting, the analysis and public comment for the potential art acquisition was presented to the Board. After considering the opinions rendered at each step in the procedure, the Board concluded that the Trust should decline this offer.

List of Projects Reviewed Though the N2 Process Under Stipulation VII.B.2 Project Title 13-021 Indeterminate Line Sculpture by Bernar Venet Summary The project sponsor, a private collector, has made an unsolicited offer to Project Miscellaneous donate to the Presidio art collection one of the Indeterminate Line sculptures Project Manager: Allison Stone by Bernar Venet. Venet is a French-born (1941) conceptual artist who has exhibited his works in various locations throughout the world. In the 1980s and Submitted 2/7/2013 1990s, he created a series of sculptural works titled Indeterminate Lines. These Reviewed on: 2/28/2013 works were created by bending and twisting long square rods of steel with an overhead crane. The sculpture is approximately 30 feet high, 30 feet wide, and Certificate of Compliance Issued 20 feet deep, and weighs approximately 20 tons. The sculpture would be PROJECT CANCELLED located on or adjacent to the new parkland that will be created by the Presidio Parkway project (tunnel top) at the Main Post Bluff, where it would frame views of the Golden Gate Bridge and Bay, and help draw visitors from Crissy Field up the bluff and into the Main Post. The Trust Board of Directors will make the final decision on whether to accept or reject the statue in accordance with the Trust’s Art Policy and subject to review procedures set forth in the Trust’s Art Collections Manual. Note: Following the conclusion of the N2 meeting, the analysis and public comment for the potential art acquisition was presented to the Board. After considering the opinions rendered at each step in the procedure, the Board concluded that the Trust should decline this offer. Project Title 13-022 Mountain Lake Overflow and Diversion Monitoring Well Installation Summary Caltrans needs to conduct a hydraulic analysis in support of the development Project Research/Testing and evaluation of alternative approaches for the upcoming Mountain Lake Project Manager: Eilleen Fanelli Diversion and Overflow project. Groundwater data from monitoring wells installed in the area surrounding Mountain Lake are critical to development of Submitted 2/20/2013 the hydraulic analysis. This project will install seven wells, including three by Reviewed on: Administrative Review Caltrans along Highway 1 (as part of their ongoing stabilization work on the highway) and four by the Trust to the north and east of the lake. The wells Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A will be monitored for a period of one to two years to record groundwater elevations. The data will be used to calibrate the water balance model developed as part of the hydraulic analysis. The wells will be installed per current California Department of Water Resources guidelines.

List of Projects Reviewed Though the N2 Process Under Stipulation VII.B.2 Project Title 13-023 Tennessee Hollow YMCA Reach Wetland Restoration Summary The San Francisco Airport (SFO) has provided funding to create and enhance a Project Vegetation Restoration 1.51-acre riparian corridor and seasonal freshwater wetland in the material Project Manager: Rania Rayes storage area in the "Dust Bowl" as partial mitigation for work to be performed at SFO. The project design also includes rough grading for future Trust- Submitted 2/21/2013 sponsored trail and parking lot improvements in the areas immediately east of Reviewed on: 3/7/2013 the proposed wetland creation area. Approximately 9,200 cubic yards of material will be excavated and reused onsite to construct an enhanced slope and Certificate of Compliance Issued parking pad. The project will remove up to 35 eucalyptus, Monterey pine and Monterey cypress trees, the majority of which are in poor structural condition or health. Within the wetland surface, the project will create a 780-foot earthen creek channel with a 6-foot wide bottom width and average 2-foot depth. The wetland surface will be contoured in a fashion to maximize the establishment of desired vegetation, including freshwater wetland and riparian plant communities. Future trail construction will include amenities such as signage and furnishings, the parking lot and associated BMP construction, walkways and boardwalk construction, and landscaping. A project-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared prior to wetland construction work.

Project Title 13-024 Presidio Golf Course Bunker Renovation, Holes 4, 5, 6 and 14/15 Summary The Presidio Golf Course was initially constructed in 1895 and is a contributing Project Landscaping/Site Work resource to the NHLD. The existing bunkers (sand traps) on the golf course Project Manager: Brian Nettz have poor drainage, hold water, do not reflect the historic character of the golf course, and create a customer experience inconsistent with the rest of the golf Submitted 2/27/2013 course experience. This project continues the bunker rehabilitation that began Reviewed on: 3/7/2013 in 2011 and is expected to be completed in 2016 (to date, Holes 1, 3, 9, 10 and 18 are finished; see 10-075 and 12-001). The work includes the removal of Certificate of Compliance Issued existing sand, excavation to add new drainage, and construction of new bunkers. The new landform designs are reflective of golf course architecture in the 1920s and will be done in the spirit of the original 1923 Fowler and Simpson course re-design. Features will be constructed using excess soils from other Trust projects including Mountain Lake remediation.

List of Projects Reviewed Though the N2 Process Under Stipulation VII.B.2 Project Title 13-025 Bay School Community Garden Summary Members of the Bay School staff and faculty will construct two raised planter Project Landscaping/Site Work boxes at the northwest corner of building 3. The boxes will be 4 by 8 feet and Project Manager: Michael Lamb constructed with recycled plastic, similar to other Presidio installations. The school plans to grow a small amount of herbs and vegetables, taken from a list Submitted 3/21/2013 of permissible plants developed by the Presidio Trust for Trust-run community Reviewed on: Administrative Review gardens. The boxes will be watered and maintained by students during the school year, while a faculty member will maintain the boxes during the summer. Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A Watering will be done by hand and paid for by the school. Produce from the boxes will used in school lunches provided by the school’s in-house catering service.

Project Title 13-026 Building 101 2nd and 3rd Floor Tenant Improvements Summary Building 101 was rehabilitated in 2011 and has remained vacant since. Swirl Project Rehabilitation/TI Inc., a marketing firm, intends to lease the upper two floors for office use. This Project Manager: Joshua Bagley project will install improvements on the 2nd and 3rd floors and a small portion of the basement in order for the tenant to occupy the building. The Submitted 4/3/2013 work scope includes two conference rooms with aluminum/glass storefronts, Reviewed on: Administrative Review two kitchenettes, acoustic ceilings, a revised elevator vestibule entry, security and access controls, window coverings, paint, selective carpeting, and a Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A dedicated basement-level server room and bike storage room. The improvements will be made by the same contractor as building 103 and will be

List of Projects Reviewed Though the N2 Process Under Stipulation VII.B.2 Project Title 13-027 Arguello Boulevard Bike Lanes and Pedestrian Path Summary This project addresses a documented safety issue and closes a critical gap in the Project Transportation/Parking Presidio’s pedestrian circulation network by altering Arguello Boulevard to Project Manager: Amy Marshall accommodate full travel lanes, new Class II (striped, in-road) bike lanes, and a new pedestrian path on an approximately 900-foot stretch of the roadway Submitted 4/3/2013 between Inspiration Point and Washington Boulevard. Where needed, the Reviewed on: 4/11/2013 roadway section will be extended along the south/west side, over the grassy swale. This approach avoids construction of an elevated trail over the Certificate of Compliance Issued embankment on the northeast side of the roadway and minimizes the potential impact to nearby native plant (San Francisco Clarkia) habitat. In order to mimic the current sheet flow condition over the slope on the northern side of the roadway, a variety of drainage and pedestrian walkway conditions are being examined. An existing drainage inlet and 8-inch pipe on the west side of Arguello near Inspiration Point will be increased in size to accommodate storm events. Five trees, including a 12-inch cypress and four pine trees ranging in diameter from 14 to 16 inches, and several toyons and blackberry will be removed along the south/west side of the roadway. A new median island will be added at the entrance to the Inspiration Point Overlook parking lot to reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians crossing the parking lot entrance.

Project Title 13-028 Funston Avenue Stairs Summary This project will repair an existing staircase along a secondary but important Project Landscaping/Site Work pedestrian trail located between Funston and Barnard Avenues in order to Project Manager: Amy Deck enhance public safety and enjoyment of the park. The existing (non-historic) concrete stairs are crumbling, frequently covered with tree litter, and do not Submitted 4/3/2013 have a railing. The stairs lead to the road edge and there is currently no Reviewed on: Administrative Review sidewalk or trail to provide for the safe passage of pedestrians between the Main Post and the Tennessee Hollow Watershed and East Housing. The project Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A will replace the existing stairs with wooden box steps and railing within the existing alignment, and provide a small new stretch of trail guiding pedestrians to a safe road crossing. The trail surface will be natural in appearance. The trail will be built with hand tools; no heavy equipment will be used.

List of Projects Reviewed Though the N2 Process Under Stipulation VII.B.2 Project Title 13-029 Mountain Lake Adaptive Management Plan Summary An Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) has been prepared for the Mountain Project Research/Testing Lake Enhancement project. The project includes removing tules and dredge Project Manager: Terri Thomas sediments to establish a water depth that will prevent tules from encroaching on deep water areas, eradicating exotic fish, replanting submerged aquatic Submitted 4/4/2013 vegetation, and reintroducing native wildlife at Mountain Lake. On December Reviewed on: 4/11/2013 3, 2012, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued a conditional Certificate of Compliance Issued water quality certification to the Trust for the project. To ensure the project will improve water quality and enhance habitat for native flora and fauna, the RWQCB included a condition to the permit requiring the Presidio Trust to prepare and implement an AMP, subject to the RWQCB’s approval. The AMP includes: 1) a conceptual model identifying lake key functions pertaining to water quality and native species habitat; 2) goals developed from the conceptual model and leading to measurable performance objectives for removal of nonnative fish, reductions in nutrients and algal blooms, and restoration of native flora and fauna, particularly native submerged aquatic vegetation; 3) a decision framework including measureable performance objectives and sufficient monitoring to identify when management actions are necessary to achieve the goals; and 4) annual water quality reports for at least the first five years.

List of Projects Reviewed Though the N2 Process Under Stipulation VII.B.2 Project Title 13-030 Presidio Plant Nursery Greenhouses Summary The Presidio Plant Nursery lacks greenhouses of sufficient size to grow the Project Miscellaneous plants required to meet their program commitments. The older greenhouses Project Manager: Christina Wallace need replacement, and the nursery would benefit through better spatial organization. This project includes deconstruction of the existing habitarium Submitted 4/9/2013 (greenhouse structure) and its replacement with a new propagation house Reviewed on: 4/18/2013 (greenhouse structure). The existing mist house (greenhouse structure) will be repurposed for use as the habitarium (program use). Work also includes the Certificate of Compliance Issued construction of a new storage shed for storage and washing of pots and soil along the west side of the site, associated site and utility connections, and drainage improvements (construction of a new bioswale and the replacement of an existing storm drain inlet). The new propagation house is the same design and will be fabricated by the same manufacturer as the existing greenhouse (installed in 2011). The new structure is not considered permanent, but is being reviewed by Trust Permitting for life safety and code issues. The project is being funded primarily by the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy.

Project Title 13-031 MacArthur Meadow Revitalization - Phase I Summary This project will remove up to 5,000 cubic yards of material from MacArthur Project Vegetation Restoration Meadow to provide fill for the building 34 demolition and other Trust projects. Project Manager: Rania Rayes The work will allow for future revitalization of the site for wetlands as part of the larger restoration of the Tennessee Hollow Watershed. The project will Submitted 4/18/2013 avoid approximately 940 truck trips and associated traffic, noise and air Reviewed on: 4/25/2013 pollution effects in the park and region, as well as reduce the park’s footprint on regional landfills. Standard Trust protective measures will be implemented in Certificate of Compliance Issued order to protect cultural and natural resources including existing wetlands, PROJECT CANCELED culturally important palm trees, nesting birds, stone channels, and utilities. Following completion of the soil removal, the site will be graded, stabilized, and revegetated in a manner that ensures public safety is protected, the potential for erosion is minimized, and visual impacts are lessened. Targeted outreach with adjacent neighborhoods, on-site signage, possible use of Public Information Coordinators, and other strategies will be implemented in consultation with Trust External Affairs.

List of Projects Reviewed Though the N2 Process Under Stipulation VII.B.2 Project Title 13-032 Cell Site 17 - Temporary COW for AC34 Summary AT&T intends to deploy a temporary cell site on wheels (referred to as a Project Cell Sites COW) in a 15- by 40-foot space directly east of Stilwell Hall (building 650). Project Manager: Steve Carp The mast will extend 40 feet from the ground and use existing utility hookups from the adjacent building. Duration of the COW is limited to the 34th Submitted 4/12/2013 America's Cup. The COW will be removed after the races end. Reviewed on: Administrative Review Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A

Project Title 13-033 1 Muir Loop Kitchen Tenant Improvements Summary The tenant proposes to upgrade the kitchen and reconfigure the adjacent Project Rehabilitation/TI bathroom. The work includes the removal and replacement of existing Project Manager: Ann Ostrander cabinetry, appliances, fixtures and finishes. Eliminating the tub in the adjacent bathroom will allow for more kitchen counter space. The project will increase Submitted 4/10/2013 efficiency and bring the kitchen area up to the same residential standards found Reviewed on: Administrative Review in the Presidio and elsewhere. Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A

Project Title 13-034 American Cancer Society Relay for Life of San Francisco - Summary The American Cancer Society Relay For Life event provides the opportunity Project Special Events for participants to honor cancer survivors, remember those lost to the disease, Project Manager: Christie Schantz and raise funds and awareness to help end cancer. The overnight fundraising walk will take place over two days (8/3-8/4) at the Civil War Parade Ground on Submitted 4/16/2013 the Main Post. Approximately 400 participants will take turns walking Reviewed on: Administrative Review through the night around the parade ground and will take breaks in small tents set up on the parade ground for shelter. The event will include family games, Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A activities and entertainment.

List of Projects Reviewed Though the N2 Process Under Stipulation VII.B.2 Project Title 13-036 Heritage Program Exhibits at Building 50 Summary This project will add state-of-the-art exhibits, furnishings and multi-media Project Site Furnishings installations into the historic and non-historic (1972) portions of the Officers’ Project Manager: Noreen Hughes Club (building 50). These exhibits will be featured elements of the visitor experience in the orientation lobby, Mesa and Anza Rooms, Moraga Hall and Submitted 5/14/2013 the Heritage Gallery on the ground floor of the 1972 addition. The Reviewed on: 5/23/2013 rehabilitation of the Officers’ Club was previously reviewed (11-045) and construction began in 2011. The infrastructure requirements to support Certificate of Compliance Issued exhibits (lighting, data and power) were incorporated into the earlier project and have already been built. Fabrication and installation of the exhibits will occur concurrently with completion of building rehabilitation so that the building and exhibits can open together in the spring of 2014. Exhibits have been designed to minimize damage to historic finishes and features, employing low-impact installations such as pressure fitting, projected images, minimal mechanical connections and floor-mounted furnishings (such as artifact cases). Concept designs for the exhibit installation are currently on display and available for public comment in the building 103 gallery.

Project Title 13-037 Tree Fall Art Installation by Andy Goldsworthy Summary The British artist Andy Goldsworthy will install a fully reversible artwork on Project Miscellaneous the interior of building 95 (Powder Magazine, 1863), a small (25 feet by 30 Project Manager: Allison Stone feet) and currently inaccessible masonry structure located on the Main Post. The work, known as "Tree Fall,” will be comprised of a new freestanding Submitted 5/23/2013 structural frame and furred-out ceiling within the historic vaulted interior, from Reviewed on: 5/30/2013 which will be suspended a section of tree and an application of locally derived clay. The artwork will encourage visitors to explore the historic structure and Certificate of Compliance Issued discover the art within. The new ceiling and structural frame will be anchored to an existing non-historic concrete slab and have no attachment points to the historic masonry portions of the structure. The remainder of the building will be untouched except for the removal and safe storage of the interior door, which will be replaced upon removal of the artwork. The installation has been designed by a structural engineer in order to avoid harm to the existing structure, and includes no artificial lighting. As part of the project, exterior ADA upgrades will be made to ensure that the necessary parking and path of travel are provided.

List of Projects Reviewed Though the N2 Process Under Stipulation VII.B.2 Project Title 13-038 Fort Scott Parking Regulations Summary Parking regulations are part of the ongoing Non-Residential Parking Program Project Transportation/Parking that started in 2007. As Fort Scott becomes more active, parking management Project Manager: Heather Salem control regulations will be needed to ensure that the parking nearby serves the needs of future tenants. This first round of parking regulations within the Submitted 5/24/2013 district includes the parking lot serving the Log Cabin, the parking along Storey Reviewed on: Administrative Review Avenue, and the parking lot in front of building 1208. The project will install parking machines to vend parking permits and associated regulatory signage at the three lots Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A

Project Title 13-039 Lobos Phase III Reforestation, South Hills Summary Declining pines in the 0.8-acre VMP Historic Forest Zone on the east side of Project Trees Lincoln Boulevard between building 1750 and Brooks Court are in need of Project Manager: Peter Ehrlich removal. One Monterey cypress that is over mature and growing over a power line is also in need of replacement. Many trees of the Brooks Court windbreak Submitted 5/30/2013 have been removed or been blown over, necessitating replacement of the wind Reviewed on: 6/6/2013 screen. One Monterey cypress, 3 Monterey pines and 6 long-leafed acacia will be removed. Traffic control on Lincoln Boulevard and one way traffic Certificate of Compliance Issued modification will be required at times during the tree removals and stump grinding. Erosion control in the form of wattle bundles and either coir or jute netting will be secured to the slope after compost application and drip irrigation installation. Some long-leafed acacia will not be removed to aid in slope stabilization. A mixture of 80 to 90 pitch canker-resistant Monterey pine and shore pine seedlings will be planted on 15-foot centers. Thinning will occur periodically via the removal of unhealthy and poorly rooted trees to arrive at an optimal density of healthy trees.

List of Projects Reviewed Though the N2 Process Under Stipulation VII.B.2 Project Title 13-040 Washington Phase I Reforestation, South Hills Summary The 0.9-acre area south of the log storage area near Washington and Park Project Trees Boulevards (along the Bay Area Ridge Trail) is a center of bark beetle activity Project Manager: Peter Ehrlich and Monterey pine decline. These very large conifers are either dead or dying and need replacement. Part of the tree removal area is adjacent to Washington Submitted 5/30/2013 Boulevard where declining pines pose a risk along the roadway. Tree Reviewed on: 6/6/2013 replacement with young Monterey cypress will enable the forest to grow in a sustainable way. Some eucalyptus will be planted to screen the log storage area Certificate of Compliance Issued 6/17/2013 from Washington and the new trail. Twelve over mature Monterey pines and 2 blue gum eucalyptus will be removed, which will require trail closure and intermittent traffic control. Construction of the new trail near Park Boulevard should allow use of heavy equipment for tree establishment and other long- term reforestation/forest maintenance activities in the area. Approximately 100 Monterey cypress and 30 eucalyptus (either E. melliodora, E. haemostoma, and/or E. neglecta) seedlings will be planted on 15-foot centers. Thinning will occur periodically via the removal of unhealthy and poorly rooted trees to arrive at an optimal density of healthy trees.

Project Title 13-041 West Pacific Phase VI Reforestation, East Housing Summary Reforestation of this 0.6-acre northern section of Monterey cypress stand will Project Trees continue the replacement of trees that were topped beginning in 1947 and Project Manager: Peter Ehrlich compromised by poor pruning. Fifteen trees will be removed and stump ground where possible. Access will primarily be from West Pacific II and West Pacific Submitted 5/30/2013 I (east and southeast) although some access, most notably for log removal, will Reviewed on: 6/6/2013 be necessary from Sibley Road. Nine mature blue gum eucalyptus will be left to screen the Liggett neighborhood from the reforestation project. The majority Certificate of Compliance Issued 6/17/2013 of brush chipping will occur in the southern area of the site as far away from the neighborhood as possible. Sandy soils will be amended with Presidio-made compost. Erosion control will be accomplished with the installation of wattle bundles installed along the north facing slope that is just north of the tree removal area. Approximately 100 Monterey cypress will be planted on 15-foot centers. Thinning will occur periodically via the removal of unhealthy and poorly rooted trees to arrive at an optimal density of healthy trees.

List of Projects Reviewed Though the N2 Process Under Stipulation VII.B.2 Project Title 13-042 Building 125B Wheelchair Access Summary The tenant will provide wheelchair access to the residential unit. An interior Project Rehabilitation/TI stair chair lift and an exterior chair lift will be installed. The exterior site Project Manager: Kevin Lorne improvements to accommodate the exterior chair lift include the temporary removal of the southern porch rail (to be stored onsite), and the installation of Submitted 6/27/2013 a chair lift on top of a new concrete pad along with a new concrete path from Reviewed on: Administrative Review the sidewalk to the lift. Interior work is limited to a stair chair lift. All work is reversible and will be removed at the time of vacancy. Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A

Project Title 13-043 June SF Brewery in Building 644 Summary June SF, LLC will lease building 644 on a short-term basis (i.e., 3 years) to Project Building Use operate an approximately 13,640 square-foot small beer production facility Project Manager: Joshua Bagley (d.b.a. June or June SF). The brewery will consist of from three to five employees at any one time during the hours of primary operation from 6 am Submitted 7/3/2013 to 5 pm Monday through Friday. The facility will not be open to the public for Reviewed on: 7/11/2013 tours, visits, sales or consumption. Interior improvements will include the installation of a 20-gallon brewing system that will produce up to 10k barrels of Certificate of Compliance Issued beer per year. Exterior improvements will be limited to vents installed in existing roof penetrations. No signage will be placed on the building indicating its use or promoting the company. Truck traffic for picking up and delivering goods and equipment will be limited to no more than fourteen per week. Trucks will be less than 18 wheelers, and pickups and deliveries will take place before 11 am, accessing the west side of the building (with the possible exception of initial equipment deliveries). All parking will be located within the fenced area to the west of the building.

List of Projects Reviewed Though the N2 Process Under Stipulation VII.B.2 Project Title 13-044 LBP in Soil Removal at Buildings 40, 41, 45, 49 & 50 Summary This project will remediate elevated lead in soil detected in the drip-lines of Project Remediation buildings 40, 41, 45, 49 and 50 per the Presidio Lead-based Paint (LBP) in Soil Project Manager: Nina Larssen Workplan. Remediation is usually completed by excavation of lead- contaminated soil, which results in a clean closure without future requirement Submitted 7/3/2013 for regulatory oversight. However, due to the potential for archeological Reviewed on: 8/14/2013 resources in the soil surrounding these buildings, identification testing will be conducted in advance or as part of the project to determine required steps to Certificate of Compliance Issued complete remediation for LBP in soil at these sites while avoiding adverse effects to archaeological resources. Archeological testing, monitoring and/or screening will be performed per the Archeological Management Assessment prepared for the project. “Capping” (covering the contaminated soil with geotextile membrane and a minimum of 6 inches of clean fill or an impermeable membrane such as concrete or asphalt) may be considered if the presence of archaeological resources are identified; the resources will be left undisturbed in place. Capping will require land use controls to be in place to protect human health should the area be disturbed in the future.

Project Title 13-045 Presidio Coastal Trail Repair, Area A Summary The National Park Service, working with the Trust and the Golden Gate Project Landscaping/Site Work National Parks Conservancy, will repair the Presidio Coastal Trail at the failed Project Manager: Tom Odgers h-beam retaining wall, immediately south of the Lincoln-Washington intersection and north of the Pacific Overlook. The wall was installed in 2012 Submitted 7/30/2013 in order to construct an adequately wide trail for safe pedestrian and cyclist use. Reviewed on: 8/8/2013 The wall failed shortly after a substantial rain event during the weekend of November 30-December 2, 2012, at which time the trail was closed to public Certificate of Compliance Issued use, and a pedestrian and bicycle detour was installed along Lincoln Boulevard. Repairs will include construction of a new retaining wall, very similar in appearance to the original retaining wall, utilizing wood lagging, deeper h-beam piers and longer tie-backs. Key issues related to Area B are: 1) staging needs for equipment and materials; and 2) traffic control.

List of Projects Reviewed Though the N2 Process Under Stipulation VII.B.2 Project Title 13-046 Minor Tenant Improvements at Building 35, San Francisco Bay School Summary The San Francisco Bay School's increasing enrollment has created the need for Project Rehabilitation/TI additional classroom and faculty office space. The tenant will remove one non- Project Manager: Aaron Klang historic wall to accommodate a new classroom and build two dividing walls in two existing offices to create the additional faculty office space. The scope of Submitted 7/10/2013 work will avoid removal or effects to historic features such as grating and Reviewed on: Administrative Review venting locations. Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A

Project Title 13-047 Anza Trail Improvements Summary The Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail (Anza Trail) was identified Project Landscaping/Site Work in the Final Presidio Trails and Bikeways Master Plan and Environmental Project Manager: Amy Deck Assessment. This project will re-align and refine the trail to improve visitor safety and protect site resources. Improvements to the trail are limited to the Submitted 7/31/2013 area from Wedemeyer Street, along Battery Caulfield Road extending to Reviewed on: Administrative Review Immigrant Point picnic area adjacent to Washington Boulevard. Improvements will include over 1,000 linear feet of new trail tread, new box steps, sidewalks, Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A curbs, crosswalks, and some slope realignment. One unhealthy, aging tree will be removed. A traffic plan will include intermittent flagging but no road

List of Projects Reviewed Though the N2 Process Under Stipulation VII.B.2 Project Title 13-048 Building 101 Montgomery Street Barracks Restaurant Summary The Trust will construct a full service restaurant in the south wing of the first Project Rehabilitation/TI floor and a portion of the basement below of building 101 (built 1895, Trust Project Manager: Rob Wallace “warm shell” rehabilitation in 2011). The restaurant will be located in an area of the building that was historically used as a dormitory, mess hall and kitchen. Submitted 7/30/2013 An onsite management company will operate the restaurant in conjunction Reviewed on: 8/8/2013 with catering operations at the Golden Gate Club. A kitchen, bar, food storage and preparation area, and dining for approximately 100 guests, including Certificate of Compliance Issued outdoor seating on the front porch, will be added. New mechanical systems designed to minimize visual and physical impact to the building and landscape will be installed to accommodate kitchen needs. The basement rooms under the kitchen areas will be used primarily for storage, office, lockers and mechanical. Service access to the kitchen will be via the rear door of the south wing using either the existing stairs or a new bridge/ramp element connecting from the landing to the sidewalk along Taylor Road. LEED certification will be pursued.

Project Title 13-049 "Arrivals" Temporary Art Installation by David Wilson Summary SFMOMA award winning, Bay Area artist David Wilson will temporarily Project Miscellaneous (September 14 to November 17 ) install along the Cemetery Connector Trail a Project Manager: Allison Stone framed drawing (approximately 12 feet by 6 feet) of a cliff marking the entrance to Mendocino County. The drawing will be placed in a weather-proof Submitted 8/1/2013 frame and attached to a tree using non-invasive brackets. An interpretative Reviewed on: Administrative Review sign will be placed at the site to provide background on the installation. The artist will create hand drawn directions leading people to the site, and will invite Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A local musicians to compose a score that will be recorded and left onsite in a small battery operated cassette player for visitors to press play and hear while taking in the artwork. Part of the artist's work will include a written invitation and map for the public to explore this and 5 other outdoor installations throughout San Francisco.

List of Projects Reviewed Though the N2 Process Under Stipulation VII.B.2 Project Title 13-050 Kitchen Improvements at Building 135, Golden Gate Club Summary This project will convert an existing catering kitchen into a full service kitchen Project Rehabilitation to accommodate a full-time catering company capable of providing food Project Manager: Rob Wallace service support to multiple Presidio sites. Changes will be limited to the 1st floor kitchen area and will include the installation of new kitchen cooking and Submitted 7/15/2013 prep equipment, a new exhaust hood, and associated gas, plumbing and Reviewed on: Administrative Review electrical lines. The exhaust hood will require a new exhaust shaft up through the attic space to the roof. The existing non-historic attic vent roof Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A penetration will be reused for the kitchen exhaust.

Project Title 13-051 Building 637 Area Corrective Action Excavations Summary The Building 637 Area is a remediation site formerly operated by the U.S. Project Remediation Army as a petroleum, oil, and lubricant yard. Between 1995 and 2000, the U.S. Project Manager: Genevieve Coyle Army and Presidio Trust removed all sources of contamination, excavated soil, and treated groundwater, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board Submitted 9/12/2013 (RWQCB) issued a "No Further Action" closure certification in 2008. In March Reviewed on: 9/19/2013 2013, Caltrans collected soil and groundwater samples at the site to assess if the site was suitable for a proposed wetland and discovered residual petroleum Certificate of Compliance Issued 10/1/2013 contamination. Caltrans and the Trust also discovered leaking transformers stored behind building 638 by the Trust; the transformers leaked aged diesel and motor oil to surrounding soil. The RWQCB has directed the Trust to clean up the contamination under the Presidio's Petroleum Contingency Plan. A minimum of 3,200 cubic yards of soil contaminated with TPH as gasoline, motor oil, and/or diesel will be removed from 3 excavations, and groundwater may be treated per the draft excavation plans. The project is within the Doyle Drive temporary construction easement (TCE) and will be coordinated with adjacent construction work. The excavation will proceed north to Mason Street. If contamination proceeds underneath Mason Street, the excavation may continue north into Mason Street with traffic controls. NPS will be notified of any work proceeding into Mason Street.

List of Projects Reviewed Though the N2 Process Under Stipulation VII.B.2 Project Title 13-052 Building 933B Batting Cage Facility Summary Building 933 (Dope Shop and Boiler Room, 1921) is a contributing structure to Project Building Use the Presidio NHLD. The Trust rehabilitated the western portion of the Project Manager: Michael Fassler building, known as 933B, to a “warm shell” condition in 2008. The eastern portion of the building was rehabilitated and leased separately in 2006 as La Submitted 9/12/2013 Petit Baleen children’s swim school. ScoutPro, LLC proposes to lease the Reviewed on: 9/19/2013 1,906 square foot suite 933B on a short-term basis (i.e., 4 years) to operate a family-focused batting cage facility with 4 cages and automated screen pitching Certificate of Compliance Issued 10/1/2013 machines. The recreational facility will be staffed by one employee (who is operator and an onsite instructor for children) at all times. Planned hours of operation are from 11am to 7pm weekdays and 10am to 8pm weekends. Tenant improvements are limited to a wall mural depicting a baseball scene, protective netting and/or screen covers over all fixtures and windows, installation of free-standing pitching machines/cages/screens, and specialized flooring at the batting locations. Signage consistent with the West Crissy signage plan will be placed on the building. One parking space will be allocated for monthly passes. Peak usage is not expected to exceed 3 parking stalls.

Project Title 13-053 West Pacific Avenue and Spruce Street Boundary Wall Repair Summary This project will replace the existing concrete piers at the Spruce Street Project Maintenance entrance with sandstone piers to match adjacent walls. New piers will be the Project Manager: Christina Wallace same height, dimensions, and configuration of existing piers. Work will include: removing all ivy and vegetation on walls and cleaning walls to remove soiling, Submitted 9/16/2013 carbon build-up and biological growth; removing, replacing or repairing the Reviewed on: Administrative Review sandstone capstone pieces on the boundary wall; repointing, patching or repairing the sandstone wall where necessary with appropriate mortar. All work Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A will be performed by Oleg Lobykin of Stonesculpt.

List of Projects Reviewed Though the N2 Process Under Stipulation VII.B.2 Project Title 14-001 All-Way Stop Control at Upton-Ruckman Intersection Summary The intersection of Upton-Ruckman is currently controlled by stop signs and Project Transportation/Parking STOP pavement markings on two of the four approaches (northbound and Project Manager: Amy Marshall southbound). As occupancy increases in the Fort Scott district, there is a greater need to better define the roadways and clarify right-of-way. This Submitted 10/7/2013 project will install stop signs and STOP pavement markings on all approaches, Reviewed on: Administrative Review and reposition signage and markings for optimal visibility. Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A

Project Title 14-002 Girard and Edie Roads Parking Area Improvements Summary The Doyle Drive/Presidio Parkway project requires additional employee Project Transportation/Parking parking areas in order to avoid further impact to Trust tenants in the Gorgas Project Manager: Heather Salem Street warehouses. Improvements will be made to three areas around the intersection of Girard and Edie Roads to provide 45 parking spaces. The areas Submitted 10/23/2013 will be regulated as Zone 7 and will include associated signage. However, to Reviewed on: Administrative Review discourage visitors from using the spaces, no meters will be placed in proximity to the parking areas until the Presidio Parkway is completed. Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A

Project Title 14-003 Golf Course Use of Tenacity Herbicide Summary Golf course turf managers are currently using non-chemical methods to reduce Project IPM conditions which favor broadleaf weeds in fairways, and are allowed to Project Manager: Christa Conforti selectively use broadleaf herbicide on turf when non-chemical methods are not sufficient to keep weed levels below threshold levels. This project will add Submitted 10/21/2013 Tenacity (EPA Registration #100-1267) to the list of approved herbicides. Reviewed on: Administrative Review Tenacity presents lower risk than the other herbicides in some cases, so depending on which weed species are being targeted, Tenacity could be the Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A preferred herbicide. The pesticide application will be done according to the manufacturer’s use specifications, and as outlined in the existing IPM guidelines, including no applications if rain is forecast within 24 hours of an application, and no application in wind-speeds over 10 mph.

List of Projects Reviewed Though the N2 Process Under Stipulation VII.B.2 Project Title 14-004 Trust Grounds Use of Quicksilver Herbicide Summary Presidio landscape turf managers are in need of multiple methods to control Project IPM broadleaf weeds in lawns. Turf managers currently use non-chemical methods to Project Manager: Christa Conforti reduce conditions which favor broadleaf weeds in lawns, and selectively use broadleaf herbicides when non-chemical methods are not sufficient to keep Submitted 10/21/2013 weed levels below threshold levels. This project will add Quicksilver (EPA Reviewed on: Administrative Review Registration # 279-3265) to the list of approved herbicides, which presents lower risk than the other herbicide options. All the standard herbicide use Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A restrictions as outlined in the Presidio Trust Roads and Grounds IPM Program

Project Title 14-005 Trust Structural IPM Use of Onslaught Insecticide Summary Presidio building managers are in need of multiple methods to control fleas, Project IPM bedbugs and mites indoors. Pest managers currently use non-chemical methods Project Manager: Christa Conforti to reduce conditions which favor insects indoors, and are allowed to use insecticides when non-chemical methods do not keep these insects below Submitted 10/21/2013 threshold levels. This project proposes the addition of Onslaught (EPA Reviewed on: Administrative Review Registration #1021-1815) to the list of approved insecticides, which presents comparable or lower risk than the other insecticides. All the standard Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A insecticide use restrictions as outlined in the Presidio Trust Roads and Grounds

Project Title 14-006 815 Quarry Road Units A & B ADA Site Work Summary This project will provide accessible sidewalks, ramps, entrances and parking for Project Landscaping/Site Work units A and B in building 815 Quarry Road, East Housing. Demolition work will Project Manager: Kevin Lorne include selective clearing and removal of existing asphalt and concrete paving. New work will include site layout, determining grades to meet ADA codes, Submitted 10/29/2013 earthwork and grading, construction of new parking lot sections, installing Reviewed on: Administrative Review asphalt concrete paving at 2 percent maximum slope for ADA parking, installing an accessible concrete ramp to the building entrance, and striping the Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A parking lot for one van accessible parking space. All work will meet current ADA guidelines for accessible walks, entrances and parking.

List of Projects Reviewed Though the N2 Process Under Stipulation VII.B.2 Project Title 14-007 1706 Brook Street Units A & B ADA Site Work Summary This project will provide accessible sidewalks, ramps, entrances and parking for Project Landscaping/Site Work units A and B in building 1706 South Baker Beach Apartments. Demolition Project Manager: Kevin Lorne work will include selective clearing and removal of existing asphalt and concrete paving. New work includes site layout, determining grades to meet Submitted 10/29/2013 ADA codes, earthwork and grading, construction of new parking lot sections, Reviewed on: Administrative Review installing asphalt concrete paving at 2 percent maximum slope for ADA parking, installing an accessible concrete ramp to the building entrance, and Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A striping the parking lot for one van accessible parking space. All work will meet current ADA guidelines for accessible walks, entrances and parking.

Project Title 14-008 1711 Baker Street Units A & B ADA Site Work Summary This project will provide accessible sidewalks, ramps, entrances and parking for Project Landscaping/Site Work units A and B in building 1711 South Baker Beach Apartments. Demolition Project Manager: Kevin Lorne work will include selective clearing and removal of existing asphalt and concrete paving. New work will include site layout, determining grades to meet Submitted 10/29/2013 ADA codes, earthwork and grading, construction of new parking lot sections, Reviewed on: Administrative Review installing asphalt concrete paving at 2 percent maximum slope for ADA parking, installing an accessible concrete ramp to the building entrance, and Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A striping the parking lot for one van accessible parking space. All work will meet current ADA guidelines for accessible walks, entrances and parking.

Project Title 14-009 New Basement Commercial Unit In Building 1808 Summary This project will improve an existing unfinished basement in a non-residential Project Rehabilitation building for leasing. The scope of work includes: upgrade electrical systems, Project Manager: Kevin Lorne install acoustical material on ceilings, paint existing walls, add baseboards, install kitchenette (sink and cabinets), add two new storefront walls to create a Submitted 11/4/2013 new conference room, and finish concrete floors. Reviewed on: Administrative Review Certificate of Compliance Issued N/A

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES Exhibit D: Archaeological Research, Projects

and Program Highlights

In 2013, Trust archaeology staff provided NHPA compliance support for ongoing Trust operations, conducted elective archaeological research, and planned for the 2014 reopening of the Officers’ Club (Building 50). This summary outlines Trust archaeology’s efforts to comply with NHPA, including a list of all Archaeological Management Assessments (AMA) issued in 2013 along with a summary of archaeological identification and monitoring completed. Additionally, this report outlines activities of the broader Archaeology Program, which includes research, collections management, education, training and outreach. Archaeological Management Assessments, Identification, and Monitoring Archaeology staff worked with Presidio Trust planning staff and cultural resource consultants to support several projects within the Presidio in 2013. New AMAs were issued for five projects: YMCA Reach Wetland Restoration; Building 95 Lead Remediation and ADA Improvements; Barnard Avenue Protected Range Remediation; Buildings 40, 41, 45, 49, and 50 Lead Remediation and Building 637 Remediation (Appendix F). Trust archaeology staff completed monitoring for utility upgrades and building improvements at Building 51, irrigation upgrades at Pershing Square, tree removals in the East Arm of Mountain Lake, Barnard Avenue Protected Range Remediation, Building 86 Lead Remediation, Building 50 Lead Remediation, Building 40 and 41 Lead Remediation and Building 10 Lead Remediation. Ongoing monitoring for the Building 50 Rehabilitation project was completed in partnership with the Anthropological Studies Center (ASC) of Sonoma State University. Archaeological monitoring and oversight was also provided for Phase II of the Montgomery Street Landscaping project by Pacific Legacy, Inc., a cultural resources contractor. None of these monitoring projects resulted in the discovery of previously unknown archaeological areas. Portions of El Presidio noted during Building 50 Rehabilitation monitoring were documented, protected in place, and reburied through project redesign. Trust archaeology staff also responded to two unanticipated discoveries in 2013. Excavation for replacement of the Funston Avenue Stairs resulted in the discovery of a buried mid-twentieth century cobble channel adjacent to Barnard Avenue. The channel was photographed, mapped, protected in place and reburied. Remedial test excavations at Lendrum Court resulted in the discovery of multiple layers of trash of unknown age and origin. Archaeology staff responded to the discovery, collected the artifacts, and determined the deposit dated to the mid to late twentieth century and had been re-deposited as fill to create terraces at Lendrum Court. Archaeological oversight of the project continued, but no significant deposit was noted. In addition to the research projects conducted by Trust archaeology staff summarized in the next section, one archaeological identification project was conducted by a partner. In advance of proposed lead remediation on El Presidio, the ASC conducted test excavations drip lines of Buildings 40, 41, and 50. No intact archaeological deposits were identified. The ASC completed an Archaeological Identification Report and subsequent archaeological monitoring of remedial excavation by Trust archaeology staff confirmed the absence of archaeological deposits. All archaeological material recovered from the Presidio is permanently curated in the on-site federal curation facility.

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES Exhibit D: Archaeological Research, Projects

and Program Highlights

Archaeological Research and Project Highlights Archaeological research in 2013 focused primarily on test excavations at El Presidio de San Francisco, the Spanish-colonial archaeological site and a contributing area of the Presidio NHLD. The Mesa Street Interpretive Landscape Archaeological Identification Project was completed to assist in the implementation of the El Presidio Interpretive Landscape Project. A broad areal excavation strategy was employed in an area that measured approximately 6 meters by 6 meters, within the predicted location of the 1815 El Presidio quadrangle. Excavation was concentrated in an area believed to be a soldier’s family barracks and the adjacent parade ground (plaza de armas). Small scale investigations were conducted by Trust archaeology staff, a team of interns who received on-the-job training as part of the project and volunteers who assisted in field and laboratory processing. Over fifty volunteers contributed more than 180 hours to the project. The investigations took place several days a week between April and October 2013. A full report of the Mesa Street Interpretive Landscape investigations is underway. In summary, a disturbed layer of mixed-age artifacts was noted across the 6 meter square open excavation area. A 1-meter by 1-meter excavation unit was completed within the broader excavation area to investigate the vertical profile below this mixed deposit. This excavation unit revealed what was interpreted to be an intact Spanish-colonial deposit directly under the mixed upper deposits. Future investigations will be designed to expose the full area to determine the relationship of this layer to previously identified foundations and to determine a date and function of the deposit. Another 1-meter by 1-meter control excavation unit was excavated to the west, in the area interpreted to be the plaza de armas. No evidence of a Spanish-colonial layer was noted. In this area, almost two feet of historic fill covered an early twentieth century fencepost. Below this twentieth century ground surface was a fairly abrupt transition to sterile subsoil. The Mesa Street Interpretive Landscape investigations were conducted in accordance with the Lab’s “open site” policy, which opens excavations to park visitors and encourages questions and active engagement with the archaeological team. Archaeology interns developed interpretive signage, maintained a changing artifact display, and kept logs of their interactions with site visitors. Approximately 20-25 people visited the site each field day, with Saturdays achieving the highest rate of visitation. Three additional archaeological identification projects were undertaken by Trust archaeology in 2013. The first was a full-scale archaeological testing project at YMCA Reach in the Tennessee Hollow Watershed. In March 2013, archaeologists excavated five backhoe trenches in an area slated for wetland restoration. The area was predicted to have a moderate potential for prehistoric archaeological resources. Historic fill over buried soil horizons was noted in all trenches and inspection of buried historic surfaces did not reveal any evidence of historic or prehistoric activity. A report of the investigations has been completed and is on file at the Presidio Archaeology Lab. Following up on the 2012 identification of a buried cobble channel at MacArthur Meadow, archaeology staff returned to MacArthur Meadow in June 2013. The remaining portions of the buried cobble channel were discovered with a combination of hand excavation and backhoe trenching. The channel, which was fragmented and in relatively poor condition, was photographed, mapped, and reburied. A report of this investigation has been completed and is on file at the Presidio Archaeology Lab.

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES Exhibit D: Archaeological Research, Projects

and Program Highlights

Trust archaeologists also conducted a limited archaeological excavation around the perimeter of Building 95 in advance of lead-in-soils remediation. Because the area of proposed remedial excavation overlapped with the predicted location of El Presidio de San Francisco, eight augers were excavated in the drip line of the building to the depth of sterile subsoils to inform remedial design. No cultural deposit was noted. Subsequent remedial excavation was monitored full-time by Trust archaeology staff, confirming the absence of archaeological deposits in this area. Education and Outreach In 2013, the Lab continued to deliver successful programs at the center of El Presidio. The Archaeology Classroom, housed in Building 40 during the rehabilitation of Building 50, continued to be the hub for K-12 offerings. The education program builds on the “Excavate History” field trip for fourth graders designed to spark students’ curiosity; the field trip provides an opportunity for students to uncover some of the forgotten voices of San Francisco while discovering a personal connection to the Presidio. “Excavate History” was offered every Friday during the school year. A new field trip for first through third graders, “Thingamajigs and Whatchamacallits”, was offered broadly for the first time in 2013. The Lab also re-launched “Garbology 101” (a sixth grade field trip) in partnership with the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy’s Crissy Field Center. Lab staff also hosted the SPARK internship program for seventh grade. In total, K-12 educational programs served over 1,400 elementary, middle and high school students from both public and private schools throughout San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo, and Marin Counties. In October 2013, the Archaeology Lab celebrated International Archaeology Day and California Archaeology Month with a Lab Open House and youth programming. Archaeology staff, interns, and volunteers welcomed more than 60 people into the Lab, answered questions, shared findings from the summer’s excavations, and delivered programs to school-aged children. The El Presidio interpretive landscape project continued in 2013 as adobe was added atop the foundations to commemorate the buried El Presidio and bring this little-understood layer of Presidio history to the foreground. This interpretive landscape will continue to be built upon and expanded as excavations at El Presidio are completed. Training and Intern News In March 2013, archaeology staff members presented scientific papers at the Society for California Archaeology annual meeting in Berkeley, California. Liz Clevenger, Curator of Archaeology, served as program chair for this conference and the Archaeology Lab hosted an Archaeological Conservation Workshop for professionals in conjunction with the conference. In May of 2013Archaeology and Heritage Programs staff also attended the American Alliance of Museums Conference held in Seattle, Washington. The robust field and laboratory program of 2013 supported five postgraduate internships. Recent graduates of Stanford, UC Berkeley, UC Santa Cruz, New York University and Tufts participated in the full-time residential internship program. They receive training in heritage management, archaeological field methods, laboratory analysis, collections management, museum development, and public education and outreach. The interns also complete individual projects; highlights from 2013 include a final archaeological excavation report, an ArcGIS geodatabase project compiling years of

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES Exhibit D: Archaeological Research, Projects

and Program Highlights

legacy research at El Presidio, a summary publication of NHLD-contributing archaeological areas at the Presidio aimed at a lay audience, and an integrated pest management plan for the archaeological collections. In 2013, the Presidio Archaeology team co-hosted with compliance staff, a summer US/ICOMOS intern Laura Matarese visiting from Australia. Ms. Matarese worked with preservation, heritage and archaeology staff to gain information on past, present and future Preservation and Heritage goals for public outreach. Her “Historic Preservation Programs Report,” successfully identified and summarized past historic preservation programs at the Presidio and included a review of the types of past historic preservation programs (e.g. talks, workshops), staff resources (e.g. employees involved in a program, an evaluation of time to prepare and undertake a program) and the types of audiences that attended the programs (e.g. professionals, the public). An aim of the report was to identify the strengths and successes of the past historic preservation programs. In addition, the purpose the report outlined ideas for potential future historic preservation programs. It included building on the strengths of past programs and identifying opportunities for new historic preservation activities, audiences and partnerships. Preservation, heritage and archaeology staff intends to use this important document to implement new public outreach programs in the future.

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit E: National Register Evaluations

2008 Update to the Presidio of San Francisco National Historic Landmark Registration Form – Status at the end of 2013 In late 2007 the Trust initiated an update to the NHL documentation to reflect changes that have occurred in the NHLD since 1993. Trust contractor Page & Turnbull submitted a 90% draft of the Update to the National Park Service-Pacific West Regional Office (NPS-PWRO) in October of 2008. Document review began in 2009, and in 2011 the Trust began working with Page & Turnbull to address initial comments from the NPS-PWRO. The Trust submitted to NPS-PWRO an updated draft that addressed comments in January of 2014. After the Update is finalized, the new information will merge with the existing 1993 National Register nomination into a single document. The Trust anticipates initiating a comprehensive update of the NHL Registration Forms following the completion of the Doyle Drive replacement project (+/- 2016). The draft 2008 Update did not re-evaluate buildings already listed as contributing, but does provide revised descriptions of buildings removed or altered since 1993. Evaluation did not include the interiors of buildings, and did not include individual landscape features or cultural landscapes. Research focused on post-1945 buildings, particularly on those constructed after 1943 (since those have reached 50 years of age since the 1993 Update). The 2008 Update also includes context statements describing historic periods not considered in the 1993 Update. Those periods of post-World War II development are as follows:

• Beginning of the Cold War, 1946-1949 • Korean War, 1950-1953 • Military Affairs between Wars, 1954-1958 • Vietnam War, 1959-1973 • Operational Training and Readiness, 1974-1989 • Persian Gulf War and BRAC, 1990-1994

The draft 2008 Update identified 119 resources as eligible for listing on the National Register (106 buildings and 13 structures). These are listed below according to their building number, Army-era name, and date of construction:

• 401- 434: East Washington Housing (1948) • 1772: Water Pump House (1948) • 98: Garage (1949) • 645: Sewage Pump House (1949) • 765, 767: Upper Portola Housing (1950) • 644, 649: US Army Reserve Training Center – Harmon Hall (1951) • 1501-1599: Baker Beach Housing (1953) • 385: Post Exchange (1955) • 68: Emergency Generator (1955) • 924: Engineer Field Maintenance (1958) • 386: Post Library (1958)

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit E: National Register Evaluations

All resources identified in the draft 2008 Update as eligible have been treated as historic properties while the report has been under NPS and Trust review. Between 2011 and 2013 the Trust compliance staff continued to develop and refine “physical history reports” for the eligible properties following the same format as the 1993 NPS documentation. These reports, as well as additional archival research into the buildings’ histories, have helped in the monitoring and assessment of residential building turns and cyclic maintenance for the newly-eligible buildings since 2008. The Trust has finalized and submitted the update to the NPS for review in 2014.

The PA-MPU stipulated that an individual determination of eligibility (DOE) would be made for building 385 (Post Exchange, 1956), located in the Main Post and scheduled for demolition under the Main Post Update. This determination will help determine appropriate treatment of the building prior to its removal in order to accommodate the Moraga Avenue parking lot. The Trust submitted these materials to the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) for review including OHP DPR-523 forms documenting the building’s history and status in January 2014. The Trust has also completed HABS recordation for building 385. Baker Beach Housing & Buildings 34, 63, 385, and 387 DPR-523 Forms In 2013, the Trust continued consultation started in 2012, with the OHP on the completion of a DPR-523 documentation exercise in support of 2012 compliance activity to demolish buildings 1566 and 1564 in the Baker Beach Housing area. The Baker Beach Housing work was completed as part of the Section 106 consultation on the Trust’s proposed removal of two units of this 91-building collection of enlisted men’s family housing (built 1953). Draft DPR forms for the entire Baker Beach Housing neighborhood were submitted in the summer of 2012, and in 2013 the Trust finalized these documents with the OHP. In the fall of 2013 the Trust resolved the consultation on the removal of buildings 1566 and 1564 with the OHP and NPS with a memorandum of agreement. The buildings were demolished in December. Building 34 (Automatic Data Processing & Communications Center, built 1968), was proposed for removal under the 2008 Main Post Update. The Trust completed DPR 523 documentation for the building and submitted it to OHP in June of 2012, finding that the building was not eligible for listing on the National Register, and did not qualify as a contributor to the NHL. The SHPO concurred with this finding in a letter sent to the Trust on September 12, 2012. The Trust demolished building 34 in the spring of 2013. In January of 2014 the Trust submitted DPR 523 documentation for three Main Post buildings constructed during the Cold War Period. Building 63 is a 1971 gymnasium currently in use by the YMCA. Building 385, a former Post Exchange built 1955, is a one-story concrete structure used as an event space. Building 387 was constructed in 1988 to accommodate a child day care center; today it is operated as a day care and pre-school by the San Francisco Unified School District. The Trust submitted documentation for these buildings to determine eligibility for listing on the National Register and qualification as contributors to the NHL.

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES Exhibit F: Consultation under Stipulation X –

Review of Future Planning Documents

The Trust did not engage in any activity under Stipulation X of the PTPA in calendar year 2013. Please see Exhibit G: Multi-agency Consultations for a description of projects that involved consultation with other agencies and the public outside of Stipulation VII of the PTPA in 2013.

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit G: Multi-Agency Consultation Projects

Doyle Drive Replacement Project A Record of Decision and a Programmatic Agreement for the Doyle Drive replacement project were executed in 2008, concluding a multi-year consultation effort. Parties involved in design and construction efforts since that time have included the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), Caltrans, San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA), National Park Service-GGNRA, California SHPO and the Trust, along with engineering, design and environmental consulting firms. In 2010, the state identified the project as a candidate for a public-private partnership (known as “P3”) to complete funding, design and construction. The remaining four contracts were included in the P3 package, and a concessionaire was selected in December 2010. Project planning, design development and preparations for historic resource protection measures according to the Built Environment and Archaeology Treatment Plans (BETP and ATP) continued throughout 2013, as they had in previous years of the project.

Caltrans finalized the BETP and ATP in February of 2009 and since then has convened monthly meetings of the Treatment Oversight Panel (TOP), a Caltrans-led team of cultural resource specialists representing signatory agencies to the Doyle Drive PA. The TOP reviews and approves all activities implemented under the BETP, and several building and landscaping documentation efforts including Historic American Landscape Survey (HALS), Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) and Historic American Building Survey (HABS) of Presidio areas directly impacted by construction. In 2013, the TOP reviewed construction and planning documents prepared by the P3 team to support commitments made under the BETP and ATP. Finalization of building and landscape documentation efforts continued, as well as management of the phased implementation of the building monitoring and/or stabilization programs for resources determined to be at risk during highway construction. The TOP worked with P3 cultural resource subcontractors to review their analysis of proposed construction methods, designs and resource protection measures. As of the end of 2013, the P3 team has successfully completed the bulk of design and pre-construction studies related to the various aspects of resource protection under the BETP. Construction on the P3-led portions of the project commenced in early 2013 and will continue through 2014. Construction completion is expected in 2016. The Caltrans proposal to adaptively reuse a historic incinerator, building 669 (constructed in 1936 and located in the Cavalry Stables area), to house permanent pump station equipment supporting the new freeway was accepted in 2011, and work on the project continued throughout 2012-13. An addendum finding of effect was initiated by Caltrans to account for the building upgrades and proposed equipment installation, and its finding of no adverse effect was accepted by the OHP in the fall of 2012. The project included masonry repairs, painting of interior and exterior elements, gutter installation and window repair, along with structural upgrades and equipment installation. Work was largely completed in 2012, with only minor scope items completed in 2013. The property and equipment has been turned over to Trust crews for ongoing operation and maintenance.

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit G: Multi-Agency Consultation Projects

Construction in Progress of the Main Post Tunnel

In 2013, P3 crews coordinated with Trust staff to temporarily relocate building 201 (Quartermaster warehouse, 1897) from the west side of Halleck Street to the north side of French Court. The P3 team completed a long-envisioned, temporary relocation, protection and rehabilitation plan for building 201 in order to construct the Main Post Tunnel in February. The plan was accepted by TOP in early spring and the move was completed over several weeks in early summer. Once the Main Post Bluff tunnel is built and Halleck Street restored, 201 will be returned to its approximate pre-construction location and fully rehabilitated for a new use. In the second half of 2013, Trust design, compliance and planning staff engaged with the P3 team and TOP representatives to begin planning for the rehabilitation of the building. In the interim it will be secured, monitored and protected on a storage site. More information about this scope of work, including pictures, can be found at the Doyle Drive/Presidio Parkway website here: http://www.presidioparkway.org/

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit G: Multi-Agency Consultation Projects

Building 201 at its temporary location to the north side of French Court

The Doyle Drive project completed and implemented a long-envisioned stabilization and protection plan for building 228 (Bakery, 1909) in 2013, which included structural and geotechnical strengthening of the unreinforced masonry building and its surrounding soils. Identified in the early phases of the project as one of the most vulnerable structures in the construction corridor, the condition of building 228 has been substantially improved; monitoring and protection measures will continue for the remainder of the project. Other major milestones in the completion of the project included the demolition of the original High Viaduct, and substantial progress in constructing the northbound Battery Bluff tunnel and north/southbound Main Post Bluff tunnels. Trust compliance staff worked closely with Caltrans cultural resources staff and contractors in order to facilitate all cultural resource protection and monitoring efforts according to the Doyle Drive PA. This collaboration has proven to be a highly-effective partnership that will continue for the duration of the project as it transitions to contracts managed by the P3 team. For additional information regarding the Doyle Drive project and activities under its PA please refer to the Caltrans produced annual report for that project. WWII Memorial The 1.4-acre West Coast World War II Memorial was designed and built in the late 1950's and early 1960s, and is under the jurisdiction of the American Battlefield Monuments Commission (ABMC). The ABMC-funded project, which began in late 2012, has constructed an accessible parking space in

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit G: Multi-Agency Consultation Projects

the adjacent parking lot off of Washington Boulevard and provided an accessible path of travel down from the parking area to the memorial itself. The project scope also included landscape improvements that will be compatible with the memorial and the surrounding landscape, and removal of non-native ceanothus plants to restore ocean views from an existing bench at the base of the slope. Although ADA and landscape improvements will be funded by the ABMC, Trust staff assisted in the development of the designs in order to ensure compatibility with the surrounding landscape, which includes historic forest, native plant and designed landscape areas. The project was substantially completed at the end of 2013 and will reopen to the public in early 2014. Main Post Update Consultation on the Main Post Update, which began in November of 2007, was concluded in October 2010 with the execution of an agreement document by the Trust, the ACHP, NPS and SHPO. In addition to the signatory and invited signatory parties, the San Francisco Architectural Heritage (SFAH), the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP), the Neighborhood Associations for Presidio Planning (NAPP), the Marina Community Association, and the Interfaith Center of the Presidio signed the PA-MPU as concurring parties. Consultation through the PA-MPU on select MPU projects occurred during calendar year 2013. Trust compliance staff has circulated quarterly updates on all activities under the PA-MPU to all parties that participated in the consultation. A summary of activity under the PA-MPU in 2013, organized by project, is included below: El Presidio Interpretive Landscape Pilot Project Phase II – Spanish Chapel Site Beginning in the summer of 2012, the Trust has carried out a pilot project to study interpretation methods for the foundation and configuration of the perimeter wall of El Presidio (the Spanish-era fort at the Main Post). The first area where this treatment has been deployed is the rear yards of the Upper Funston homes (buildings 11-16) between the buildings and the eastern curb line of Mesa Street. This pilot project is comprised of surface-mounted stone blocks, rubble and adobe bricks. In the spring of 2013 the Trust’s Archaeology Lab proposed a second phase of work, which added adobe blocks to the already-interpreted Spanish Chapel site located between the Archaeology Lab offices (49) and the Officers Club (50) on Moraga Avenue. The Trust also plans to add wayside signs to the Mesa Street and Spanish Chapel installations in the future in order to aid the visiting public’s understanding of the interpretive landscape.

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit G: Multi-Agency Consultation Projects

Interpretive landscape of adobe blocks between buildings 49 and 50.

The Trust has implemented these pilot projects in order to test the effectiveness of the materials and concept. The objective of the pilot projects is to help develop a “tool kit” of materials and designs that will inform the future, permanent interpretive treatment for the entire El Presidio site. Depending on the success of the pilot projects, the treatments may be altered in the future. Demolition of Building 34 The Trust reviewed demolition of the non-historic building 34 (Automatic Data Processing Center/former Trust offices, built 1968) at an NEPA/NHPA (N2) meeting on February 28, 2013. The plan received a certificate of compliance and categorical exclusion on March 8 and demolition work began in spring of 2013. Demolition was completed in late July; the Trust has no immediate plans for new development on the site. Completed Documents & Projects under the PA-MPU All completed documents related to the Main Post Update can be found on the Trust’s website, posted to this page: http://www.presidio.gov/about/Pages/project-documents.aspx Pilot Projects: Interpretive Landscape Treatment for El Presidio – Upper Funston (Phase I, 2012) and Spanish Chapel Site (Phase II, 2013) – Installation completed as of late 2013. Main Post Cultural Landscape Report (July 2012), available on the Trust website. Chapel (building 130) Historic Structure Report (May 2012), available on the Trust website.

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit G: Multi-Agency Consultation Projects

Levantar – the Archaeological Management Plan for El Presidio (April 2012), available on the Trust website. Updated Main Post Planning & Design Guidelines (June 2011), available on the Trust website. West of Main Parade Cultural Landscape Report Focused Study (June 2011), available on the Trust website. Archaeology Lab & Curatorial Facility – Construction began in early 2011 and the facility has since been completed. Taylor Road Parking Lot – Construction began in October 2011 and has since been completed. OTHER MULTI-AGENCY CONSULTATION PROJECTS Demolition of Baker Beach Housing Units for Habitat Restoration (buildings 1564 and 1566) In June of 2011, the Trust initiated consultation under Stipulation VII.A.3 and subsequently Stipulation IX.B of the PTPA regarding the proposed demolition of buildings 1564 and 1566 in the Baker Beach residential neighborhood (a six-unit apartment building and carport, both constructed in 1953). The building removal is consistent with the Presidio Trust Management Plan (2002), which calls for the phased removal of all buildings in the Baker Beach Housing complex beginning in 2010 in order to “restore native plant habitat and expand and enhance open space.” This provision has been supported by and is consistent with a subsequent US Fish & Wildlife Recovery Plan for the San Francisco lessingia (2003), an endangered plant species that exists in this area, as well as the Presidio Trust’s Vegetation Management Plan (2001). The draft 2008 NHL Update determined that the entire collection of residential and carport structures (buildings 1501-1599) were eligible for contributing to the Presidio NHL. According to Stipulation VI, the Trust has been treating these buildings as historic properties since this determination was made. On January 24, 2012 a consultation meeting with the SHPO’s office and NPS was held to discuss the status of the buildings, consider alternatives, and make plans for how the consultation may proceed. The Trust followed up with a consultation package in February 2012 that revised the undertaking’s APE, offered alternatives to building removal, and described a process for engaging the public on the proposal. Following the close of public comment period, the Trust submitted DPR-523 forms to the OHP which determined that the Baker Beach Housing complex was eligible for listing on the National Register. The question of its eligibility for inclusion in the NHL will be left to the NPS review of the 2008 Update document. The Trust finalized the DPR forms in consultation with OHP in mid-2013, and in September circulated an MOA to resolve the consultation. The MOA was executed in November and is included in this report as an appendix. Demolition of the two buildings was completed in December of 2013. Rehabilitation of the Mason Street Warehouses (buildings 1182-1188) On July 12, 2013 the Trust initiated consultation with the PTPA consulting and signatory parties on the rehabilitation of the Mason Street Warehouses. The undertaking involves the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of seven contributing buildings to the NHL, collectively known as the Mason Street Warehouses (buildings 1182, 1183, 1184, 1185, 1186, 1187, 1188, built 1917-19) for use as a retail sporting goods store (Sports Basement, a current Trust tenant in building 610).

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit G: Multi-Agency Consultation Projects

In addition to the full rehabilitation of the seven buildings, the undertaking includes: landscape, streetscape and parking improvements along Mason Street (additional parking will be constructed south of the buildings as part of the Doyle Drive project); and full seismic and building systems upgrades to provide mercantile, assembly spaces (both indoor and outdoor), business/office space, and accessory uses (storage, mechanical, restrooms, and outdoor circulation). The project scope also proposes the installation of ridge skylights for increased natural light and a series of new building connections achieved through selective new openings in existing walls, extension of the historic loading docks, and the construction of approximately 4,000 sq/ft of connecting structure between the warehouses. The July consultation package included a copy of the Trust’s Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment (NOI for an EA), a draft Area of Potential Effect (APE), a preliminary finding of “no adverse effect”, and a proposal to proceed under Stipulation X of the PTPA. In the letter, the Trust noted its intent to use guidance from the recently-issued “NEPA and NHPA: Handbook for Integrating NEPA and Section 106 Reviews” for coordinating NEPA and NHPA reviews. Although this document predates the PTPA, the Trust has found it to be a useful point of reference for the public and participating agencies as a guide for coordination (not substitution) of these two processes. Following release of the first consultation package, the Trust agreed - in consultation with the ACHP and SHPO - to proceed with review of the project under Stipulation IX.C rather than Stipulation X as initially proposed. On October 11, the Trust circulated a second consultation package that contained additional project materials including a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE), renderings of the proposed rehabilitation, and a summary of public comments received during the NEPA scoping period. On November 25th, the Presidio Trust hosted a consultation meeting with representatives from NPS, SHPO and the project team to discuss comments and questions on the materials supplied to date. The Trust will work with the project proponent to advance design efforts in 2014 in order to address consultation party comments and achieve concurrence with the preliminary “no adverse effect” finding. Finalization of the EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will await conclusion of the NHPA consultation for the project. Consultation on Revision and Renewal of the 2002 PTPA The Trust initiated consultation on revisions to and renewal of the 2002 agreement document in July 2011 ahead of its planned expiration in 2012. Following an agreement among the Trust, NPS, SHPO and ACHP to extend the PTPA through the end of 2013, the Trust re-engaged on this effort in May of 2013. Since then, the Trust has engaged in regular communication with signatory and concurring parties on revisions to the document, culminating in the completion of a revised draft in November. The complete, revised draft was circulated for a 30 day public and concurring party comment period beginning on November 15. Following the conclusion of that comment period, the signatory agencies agreed to extend the agreement until the end of April 2014. The Trust will continue to coordinate consultation on the new PTPA through the spring of 2014 so that it can be completed and executed ahead of the new expiration date.

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit H: Tax Incentive Projects

The Trust did not engage in any activity around tax incentive projects in 2013, other than ongoing monitoring and communication with tenants occupying buildings that have received tax credits in the past. No issues arose around these during calendar year 2013.

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit I: Internal Preservation Projects

This section includes summaries of building projects managed, or primarily executed, by Trust staff. The list includes full rehabilitation projects, as well as conservation projects and scheduled maintenance. The projects listed below were either commenced or completed in the calendar year 2013, or had the vast majority of the work performed during the year. REHABILITATION PROJECTS Building 50 Rehabilitation (Officers’ Club) The objective of the Building 50 project (Officers' Club, adobe remnants likely built 1812 with multiple additions over time) is to address structural deficiencies and facilitate additional public programming in the building. The historic portion of the building has been continuously modified over its long history, but the appearance of the building today is largely owed to a 1934 rehabilitation that imparted a Mission Revival character to the building. A historic structure report was completed in 2010 to document the history of the building’s evolution and inform the rehabilitation design. This project was reviewed under stipulation VII.B.2 of the PTPA, and a certificate of compliance was issued in February of 2011 for the preconstruction abatement and in June of 2011 for the rehabilitation design. Because of the scale and complexity of the project, the Trust elected to engage with representatives from the OHP and NPS on the rehabilitation scope and the design of the new construction. This collaboration resulted in some modifications to the new construction that improved its overall compatibility with the historic structure. Soft demolition and hazardous abatement began winter of 2011, full construction started that summer and has been ongoing since. Base building construction is scheduled for completion in early 2014. The base building project scope incorporates systems, life safety and accessibility upgrades (such as a new elevator to the second floor of the 1972 addition) to maximize public accessibility to both the historic and non-historic portions of the building. Presidio education programs will be supported by updated classrooms and space for interpretive exhibits and programs, and updates to the 1972 addition will provide special events space on the top floor and additional programming space on the ground floor. The project includes demolition of non-historic volumes to highlight primary historic spaces in the front of the building, and construction of a small basement area to house mechanical equipment and other back-of-house functions that were removed from the roof and other more prominent portions of the building.

To date, selective demolition, structural upgrades and roof replacement are complete, and the adobe conservation has largely been accomplished. At the onset of construction the historic adobe walls were surveyed through non-destructive testing, which found several areas in poor condition. Adobe work was subcontracted to a specialist, and repairs began in the fall of 2011, and seismic upgrades achieved in 2012; weather-sealing and aesthetic rehabilitation of the adobe continued through 2013. The original scope of work included a new connector, known as the Hardie Street Gallery located between the historic building and the 1972 addition. However, in 2012 the Trust opted to reduce the amount of new construction associated with this element. The new design instead connects the historic and non-historic buildings via two simple, glazed passages surrounded by modestly landscaped courtyards; these changes were transmitted to the PA parties by email in the fall of 2012. The project will be LEED certified, with a goal of gold level certification. The Officer’s Club is expected to reopen in the summer of 2014.

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit I: Internal Preservation Projects

Heritage Center Exhibit Design in Building 50 In May, N2 staff reviewed the proposed exhibit design for the future Heritage Center in building 50. Programming for the building’s exhibit spaces is in development and has been informed by a series of public meetings held in 2011, as well as focused discussions with partners including the National Park Service and the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy. Work on the exhibit design proceeded through 2012, culminating in the development of a “concept book” that was shared with PA parties in the fall of 2012. The designs reached schematic phase in May of 2013 at which time they were reviewed by N2. Throughout 2013 a public exhibit highlighting the exhibit design concepts was on display in the building 103 gallery and open for public comment.

This project will add state-of-the-art exhibits, furnishings and multi-media installations into the historic and non-historic portions of the Officers’ Club (building 50). These exhibits will be featured elements of the visitor experience in the orientation lobby, Mesa and Anza Rooms, Moraga Hall and the Heritage Gallery on the ground floor of the 1972 addition. The infrastructure requirements to support exhibits (lighting, data and power) were incorporated into the base building project. Fabrication and installation of the exhibits will occur concurrently with completion of building rehabilitation so that the building and exhibits can open together in the summer of 2014. Exhibits have been designed to minimize damage to historic finishes and features, employing low-impact installations such as pressure fitting, projected images, minimal mechanical connections and floor-mounted furnishings (such as artifact cases).

Building 1202 Rehabilitation (Fort Winfield Scott Barracks) Completed in 2013, this project included the full rehabilitation of building 1202 (Fort Scott Barrack, built 1910) in order to create training classrooms and meeting spaces to support the Trust’s new Presidio Institute initiative. Designs included seismic, life-safety, and accessibility upgrades, full building system upgrades, and minor site improvements. Based on recommendations from the 2010 HSR, non-historic partitions were removed to re-establish the majority of the historic floor plan throughout the building. An elevator has been added to provide accessibility to all three floors, and additional egress and circulation features were added to conform to current life safety codes. Exterior stairs have been installed on the rear elevation from the first to second floors, and new interior stairs provide access to the attic. Consistent with Trust standards for building rehabilitation, a minimum LEED silver certification is being pursued for this project.

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit I: Internal Preservation Projects

Fort Scott’s building 1202 and site improvements

Building 1202 Landscape Rehabilitation The landscape rehabilitation for building 1202 focused on the exterior landscape and site work, including a reconfigured accessible ramp (with hand rail) at the front entrance. The project was reviewed in 2012 and work was performed in 2013, in tandem with the completion of the building rehab. The project included the removal of selected existing plantings, installation of new plantings (hedges, trees, and ground cover), and reconfiguration of the building’s central front stair to accommodate an accessible ramp and landing. New planting selections are consistent with the Fort Scott Cultural Landscape Assessment (2008) and the Vegetation Management Plan. The new ramp configuration will maintain the original historic front stairs underneath a new ramp and landing. The new ramp and landing are screened from view by new foundation plantings, and the new rail was simply designed so as to not compete with the historic porch railing. At the southeast end of the porch, the non-historic stair was removed and the associated opening in the porch rail was restored to its historic condition under this scope of work. Montgomery Street Barracks Landscape Rehabilitation The hardscape features along Montgomery Street have degraded over time, and construction work associated with the rehabilitation of Buildings 100, 101, 102 and 103 have damaged or removed foundation plantings and some hardscape features. The overall landscape designs along Montgomery Street were based on existing landscape material, and were updated for consistency with the Main Post cultural landscape report (CLR-MP), completed in 2012. Beginning in 2012 and completed in 2013, this project established a consistent and rehabilitated landscape treatment to the Montgomery Street streetscape and has provided site improvements to select areas surrounding Buildings 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, and 105. Construction was phased according to completion of rehabilitation work on the buildings. The scope of work included replacement of damaged foundation plantings with approved sod, groundcover, shrubs, and trees as well as the in-kind replacement of the historic muster walks. Parking, irrigation, street and pathway lighting upgrades were implemented as part of the

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit I: Internal Preservation Projects

scope. Accessible travel routes from the street and curb-side parking along Montgomery Street to the buildings were constructed in 2013 in order to meet occupancy requirements and to facilitate post-rehabilitation leasing efforts. The work culminated in the summer of 2013 with the re-establishment of the historic street trees and installation of foundation plantings in front of buildings 100-103. Future phases of the work will include foundation plantings at 105 and 106, pending the full rehabilitation of 105 and completion of Doyle Drive-related roadwork around 106.

Buildings 103-105 (l-r) and landscaping of the Montgomery Street Barracks

Building 101 First Floor, South Wing - Restaurant Rehabilitation In 2011 the Presidio Trust completed a warm shell rehabilitation of building 101. In 2013 the Trust proposed to rehabilitate the southern wing of the first floor of building 101 to accommodate a full-service restaurant and mercantile shop. This location and use was selected as part of the Trust’s efforts to maintain public access and use of the ground floors of the Montgomery Street Barracks, and to help animate the porches and western edge of the Main Parade. Construction began in the fall of 2013 and will continue through the winter of 2014. Located in a former barracks building (1895), the restaurant will utilize an area of the building that was historically used as a dormitory, mess hall and kitchen. The scope of work includes the conversion of the existing (original) kitchen for food preparation and back of the house kitchen functions and dishwashing. Plans also include the construction of an exposition kitchen in the historic mess hall, (center portion of the wing) with bar top dining. The former dormitory (east portion of the wing) will house the main dining room; along with the mess hall

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit I: Internal Preservation Projects

and limited outdoor seating on the front porch, the restaurant will accommodate approximately 100 guests. New interior and exterior mechanical systems have been designed to minimize visual and physical impact to the building and its landscape. The basement rooms under the kitchen areas will be used primarily for storage, office, lockers and additional mechanical systems. LEED certification will be pursued for the tenant fit-out, and the restaurant is scheduled to open in April 2014. Building 135 Catering Kitchen Rehabilitation Building 135 is an event space that was constructed in 1949 as a service club, and later used as a non-commissioned officers club; it is a contributing historic structure in the NHLD. In 2013 the Trust proposed to update the existing, original catering kitchen to add food prep and cooking equipment to accommodate a full-time catering function capable of providing food service support to multiple Presidio sites. Construction began in late 2013 and was completed at the end of the year. Alterations to the space were limited to the existing first floor kitchen area and associated service and circulation space. The primary changes proposed involved the removal of the existing kitchen toilet fixtures and, in the kitchen area, the installation of new kitchen cooking and prep equipment, new hood and associated gas, plumbing electrical service. The existing walk-in refrigerator was replaced with new in the same location, a new suspended ceiling replaced the existing suspended acoustic ceiling, and the existing epoxy flooring was patched and re-coatinged in conjunction with installation of new floor sinks and plumbing. Select steel sash windows were altered to allow for the addition of exhaust and supply louvers, and a new exhaust hood and shaft over the cooking line were installed. Exhaust shaft will be enclosed in a fire rated shaft and will reuse an existing non-historic attic vent roof penetration. Presidio Chapel (Building 130) Deferred Maintenance & Accessibility Upgrades The Trust has assumed maintenance responsibility from the current tenant (the Interfaith Center at the Presidio) for the historic chapel building 130 (built 1932). As part of this effort, the Trust funded a project to address critical deferred maintenance repairs, ADA circulation and access upgrades, life-safety deficiencies, along with repair and restoration of historic features. The scope of work included roof patching and partial replacement, removal of non-historic furnishings and finishes, replacement of roofing flashings and downspouts, exterior lighting, handrails, exterior curb ramps and walks, railings at lightwells, a new ADA toilet room and an exterior chair lift, egress lighting, interior ramp to the chancel, furnace upgrades, and new electrical conduit. This project followed recommendations in the May 2012 HSR for building 130, but does not constitute or preclude the full rehabilitation and expansion of the building as contemplated under the Main Post Update. The deferred maintenance & accessibility upgrades project was reviewed at the Trust’s regular NEPA/NHPA (N2) meeting on November 29, 2012. Work began in January 2013 and was completed in the summer. Funston House - Building 51 Rehabilitated & Open for Overnight Accommodation Completed in 2013, this project rehabilitated an historic officer’s family housing quarters (constructed 1889, with additions), into a guest lodging facility. The rehabilitated building 51, which was formerly used as a residential guest house, opened in the summer of 2013 and is managed by the existing lodging operator at the Inn at the Presidio, located in building 42 Moraga Avenue. The Funston House is a one-story wood frame structure that offers four guest rooms as well as a common living room, dining room and kitchenette. The work included seismic strengthening, upgrades to the existing mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems, new fire protection systems, new interior partitions, repairs to windows and doors, acoustic upgrades and finishes. Sitework included accessible parking,

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit I: Internal Preservation Projects

grading and landscape planting. The building will be the Presidio’s first “Build-it-Green” certification, a nationally recognized residential green rating system that will help ensure compliance with the Trust’s sustainability goals. Build-it-Green was selected as the most applicable certification program to the scale of and use for the project.

Historic Forest Rehabilitation The Presidio Forest is a contributing feature to the Presidio of San Francisco National Historic Landmark District (NHLD) and is a major component of the Presidio’s cultural landscape. The Presidio Trust’s Historic Forest is part of an extensive designed landscape effort implemented by the United States Military in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Trust has identified this landscape feature as the Historic Forest Management Zone and developed a comprehensive treatment and management plan in the Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) and the Historic Forest Character Study (2009) that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines using the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. In 2013, three areas within Historic Forest Zone were rehabilitated. The first was a 0.8-acre area located in the in the VMP Historic Forest Zone on the east side of Lincoln Boulevard between building 1750 and Brooks Court. Many trees of the Brooks Court windbreak have been removed or been blown over, necessitating replacement of the wind screen. In the fall, one Monterey cypress, 3 Monterey pines and 6 long-leafed acacia were removed. Some long-leafed acacia will not be removed to aid in slope stabilization. A mixture of 80 to 90 pitch canker-resistant Monterey pine and shore pine seedlings were planted in the late fall on 15-foot centers. As per the VMP, thinning will occur periodically via the removal of unhealthy and poorly rooted trees to arrive at an optimal density of healthy trees. The second project was a 0.9-acre area south of the log storage area near Washington and Park Boulevards (along the Bay Area Ridge Trail). This area is a center of bark beetle activity and Monterey pine decline; these very large conifers were either dead or dying and needed replacement. Part of the tree removal area was adjacent to Washington Boulevard where declining pines pose a risk along the roadway. Tree replacement with young Monterey cypress will enable the forest to perpetuate in a sustainable way. Some eucalyptus will be planted to screen the log storage area from Washington and the new trail. Beginning in August, twelve over-mature Monterey pines and two blue gum eucalyptus were removed. Because Monterey pines are highly susceptible to disease and infestations in this location, the pines at the leading edge of the Historic Forest were replaced with Monterey cypress, a compatible conifer tree of similar size and character. In December, approximately 100 Monterey cypress and 30 eucalyptus (either E. melliodora, E. haemostoma, and/or E. neglecta) seedlings will be planted on 15-foot centers. Thinning will occur periodically via the removal of unhealthy and poorly rooted trees to arrive at an optimal density of healthy trees. The third project removed 15 structurally compromised Monterey Cypress in early September from the Historic Forest Zone south of Liggett circle. This portion of the Historic Forest was called out in the 19th Century Jones plan as a Monterey cypress stand, a species chosen for its height and ability to create contrast between the Presidio reservation and the growing city. Reforestation of this 0.6-acre northern section of Monterey cypress stand will replace trees that were topped beginning in 1947 and compromised by poor pruning. Nine mature blue gum eucalyptus will be left to screen the Liggett neighborhood from the reforestation project. In December approximately 100 Monterey cypress were

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit I: Internal Preservation Projects

planted on 15-foot centers. Thinning will occur periodically via the removal of unhealthy and poorly rooted trees to arrive at an optimal density of healthy trees. As the area is comprised of a steep, sandy slope, erosion control measures will also be undertaken. MAINTENANCE, STABILIZATION, and DOCUMENTATION PROJECTS Funston Avenue Stair Repair In the spring of 2013 the Trust repaired an existing staircase located between Funston and Barnard Avenues in order to enhance public safety and enjoyment of the park. This passageway was identified in the Final Presidio Trails and Bikeways Master Plan (PTBMP) and Environmental Assessment as a secondary pedestrian trail. This is an important pedestrian connection between the Main Post, the Tennessee Hollow Watershed and to East Housing; it also serves as a programmatic connection between the future Presidio Heritage Center, El Polín Spring and other points of interest in the Watershed. Although historic maps suggest that the site of a historic path alignment was in use as early as 1909, the existing concrete stairs were believed to be added in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The stairs were in poor condition, crumbling, frequently covered with tree litter, and did not have a railing. The project replaced the existing stairs with wooden box steps and railing within the existing alignment, and provided a small new stretch of trail guiding pedestrians to a safe road crossing. Unoccupied Historic Building Survey Over the summer, the Presidio Trust was pleased to welcome US/ICOMOS intern Laura Matarese, a cultural heritage manager and archaeologist from Sydney, Australia. Under supervision from the Historic Preservation Compliance team, Ms. Matarese prepared an Unoccupied Historic Building Survey which comprehensively identified all unoccupied buildings and structures in Area B of the Presidio. The survey and report were developed to establish a comprehensive inventory and preliminary condition assessments of unoccupied historic buildings in order to inform future preservation maintenance and rehabilitation activities. The survey defined an “unoccupied historic building” as any unleased structure constructed during the period of significance including reservoirs, infrastructure facilities, barracks, batteries, and former light industrial buildings. Ms. Matarese’s research concluded that the Presidio contains a total of 122 unoccupied historic buildings, which constitute 26% of the historic buildings at the Presidio. The total built area of the unoccupied historic buildings is at least 999,407 square feet. Ms. Matarese presented her findings to interested staff at the conclusion of her internship. Since her departure, Trust compliance staff has continued to share and utilize Ms. Matarese’s findings as an important resource for future work on unoccupied historic buildings. CYCLIC MAINTENANCE 1161 Deck Repair 1161 is one of three warehouses built during the First World War that face Gorgas Avenue (part of a cluster of six warehouses in total). Like most warehouses from this period and of this construction type, it features a long loading dock made of 2”x12” thick Douglas fir boards. Many of these boards are likely original to the construction of the building but are exhibiting signs of extensive rot and will be selectively patched and/or repaired in kind. The full length of the dock wood fascia will be replaced in kind. Repair work will be performed with Trust oversight in 2014. Trust crews are communicating with compliance and preservation planning staff throughout the project to ensure that all work met the Secretary’s Standards and Trust compliance responsibilities for Appendix A activities to the PTPA.

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit I: Internal Preservation Projects

Funston Avenue Cyclic Maintenance Stabilization and exterior maintenance was undertaken at select buildings on Funston Avenue (buildings 4 and 7, constructed 1862-1870). The completion of work on buildings 4 and 7 represented the final phase of a two-year plan to address the Lower Funston Avenue houses (buildings 5, 6, 8 and 9 were completed in 2012). Nearly all of the former Officers’ houses are occupied, and paint failure was evident on all buildings, contributing to deterioration of the front porches. The building maintenance department oversaw selective exterior dry rot repairs in-kind and painting. Building 9 also received a full roof replacement. The assessment and scope of work was coordinated with the compliance and preservation planning staff throughout the project to ensure that all work met the Secretary’s Standards and Trust compliance responsibilities for Appendix A activities to the PTPA. Presidio Terrace Residential Neighborhood Cyclic Maintenance 2013 cyclic maintenance work included the historic Presidio Terrace Neighborhood, comprised of residential buildings 540-551 all of which were constructed in 1917. These buildings were exhibiting failing paint that had started to cause deterioration of exposed wood elements. Each building was assessed by maintenance crews to estimate repairs and preventative maintenance tasks. The work included carpentry repairs, particularly dry rot repairs around doors, windows, porches, railings and stairs along with exterior paint. Front and rear porches were also washed and re-painted. Presidio Terrace residential garages (buildings 552-557, constructed 1939), and located at the rear of the residences, were also assessed, repaired and washed. Trust crews communicated with compliance and preservation planning staff throughout the project to ensure that all work met the Secretary’s Standards and Trust compliance responsibilities for Appendix A activities to the PTPA. Ruckman Avenue and Kobbe Avenue Residential Neighborhoods Cyclic Maintenance 2013 cyclic maintenance work, including painting and washing continued from the 2012 cyclic maintenance of the historic Kobbe (1902-1917) and Ruckman neighborhoods (constructed 1921). These neighborhoods exhibited failing paint that had started to cause deterioration of exposed wood elements. Each building was assessed by maintenance crews to estimate repairs and preventative maintenance tasks. The work included carpentry repairs, particularly dry rot repairs around doors and windows along with exterior paint. New handrails were also added to the rear entrances of several Kobbe residential structures to address code deficiencies. Trust maintenance crews also addressed cyclic paint and maintenance at Kobbe neighborhood detached garage buildings along Hitchcock Street (built 1915-18 and 1940). Trust crews communicated with compliance and preservation planning staff throughout the project to ensure that all work met the Secretary’s Standards and Trust compliance responsibilities for Appendix A activities to the PTPA. Building 2: Preservation Maintenance Building 2 is a Civil War-era (1862) hospital that later served as the Presidio Army Museum. Located on the eastern edge of the Main Post, this wood-frame, two-story over basement building was constructed in several phases over the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The building showcases alterations made to accommodate changing needs of the post, building and medical advancements over time and exhibits a complex arrangement of roof heights, additions, porches, infill and a three-story octagonal surgical theater. In 2011 the Trust completed a Historic Structure Report to document the building’s complex history and extensive maintenance needs.

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit I: Internal Preservation Projects

In 2013 the building was exhibiting extensive paint failure that had started to cause deterioration of exposed wood elements. The building was carefully assessed and the HSR consulted by Trust maintenance crews to estimate repairs and preventative maintenance tasks. The scope of work performed included select carpentry repairs - particularly dry rot repairs around doors and windows along with exterior paint. Trust staff identified some windows that required sash repair and one in-kind sash replacement; they further determined that the overall wood siding was in good condition and only minor repairs were necessary. General drainage issues were assessed and non-functioning downspouts and gutters were repaired or replaced. Further preventative maintenance items such as roof replacement and structural repairs are scheduled to occur in future phases of work, and in response to a structural assessment currently underway. Trust crews communicated with compliance and preservation planning staff throughout the project to ensure that all work met the Secretary’s Standards and Trust compliance responsibilities for Appendix A activities to the PTPA. Building 1808 Basement Rehabilitation This project will improve an existing unfinished basement in a non-residential building for the purpose of leasing additional office space. Building 1808, built in 1932 as Nurses Quarters, is located in the Public Health Services Hospital District and is a contributing resource The upper floors of the building were rehabilitated in 2010 and have since been fully leased as multi-tenant office space. The scope of work is restricted to the basement, and includes: upgraded electrical systems, installation of acoustical material on ceilings, paint existing walls, finish concrete floors, the addition of baseboards, installation of a kitchenette (sink and cabinets), and addition of two new glass storefront walls to create a conference room. Work began in the fall of 2013 is expected to be completed in early 2014. West Pacific Ave Boundary Wall In the fall of 2013, Trust performed maintenance work at the Spruce Street entrance along the West Pacific Avenue (south) boundary wall. This project replaced the existing concrete piers at the Spruce Street entrance with compatible sandstone piers to match adjacent walls. New piers were the same height, dimensions, and configuration of existing piers. Work included: removing all ivy and vegetation on walls and cleaning walls to remove soiling, carbon build-up and biological growth; removing, replacing or repairing the sandstone capstone pieces on the boundary wall with in-kind material; repointing, patching or repairing the sandstone wall where necessary with appropriate mortar. All work was performed by a masonry specialist. This is project was overseen by Trust conservator Christina Wallace and continues Trust cycle of repairs to the boundary wall in select locations. Lyon Street Boundary Wall Investigations A sandstone boundary wall separates the City of San Francisco and the Presidio along Lyon Street at Broadway Street. This historic feature is a low-lying stone wall capped with sandstone blocks; this perimeter wall connects to the Broadway Gate that underwent repairs in 2010. In 2012 preservation funding was made available for maintenance activities necessary to stabilize the adjoining wall. In 2013, additional assessments were conducted determine structural integrity of the Lyon Street Wall and stability of the adjacent sloping landscape located within the Presidio boundary. The scope of work included removing small portions of the concrete wall to allow for the examination of spacing, dimensions and conditions of rebar to inform structural calculations for the wall. The assessment and scope of work was overseen by the Presidio Trust Preservation Project Manager Christina Wallace, and subcontracted to a masonry specialist; the project took place in November of 2013.

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit J: Tenant Preservation Projects

This section includes summaries of building projects managed, or primarily executed, by Trust tenants. The list below includes projects that were either commenced or completed in the calendar year 2013, or had the vast majority of the work performed during that year. Building 640 Rehabilitation – National Japanese American Historical Society Military Intelligence Historic Learning Center This project included the rehabilitation of buildings 640 and 641 leased to the National Japanese American Historical Society (NJAHS) to house the future Military Intelligence Service (MIS) Historic Learning Center. Rehabilitation plans included structural improvements, ADA upgrades and installation of a new interior elevator in building 640. Proposed changes to the exterior included the installation of a meditation garden, outdoor seating, and new exit stairs from the second floor offices. New bathroom facilities were installed in building 641, located west of building 640. Both buildings received exterior repairs and new roofs. This project was reviewed under stipulation VII.B.2 of the PTPA, and a Certificate of Compliance was issued in May 2007. An update to the file was approved in September of 2011 confirming that the project’s design had not changed substantially and could still receive a no adverse effect determination. Contractors hired by the tenant began base building improvements and stabilization in November 2011, but on December 23, 2011 the building suffered a partial roof collapse while the contractors were on site. Trust staff implemented emergency stabilization measures shortly after the collapse, per Stipulation XVI of the PTPA (Emergency Actions). The Trust also contracted for HABS level II documentation of buildings 640 and 641 to record their post-collapse condition (although building 641 was largely unaffected by the collapse of 640). Per Stipulation XVI of the PA the Trust submitted a report to the SHPO on February 23, 2012 that documented actions taken to minimize effects to the building, the work’s status at the time, and the planned treatment of the property. Work continued on the building over the course of 2012, and by early 2013 its exterior envelope, including a new roof and truss system, were largely complete. The original scope of work for the base building was completed in the summer of 2013, and the exhibits were installed by November. The long-envisioned MIS Historic Learning Center opened to visitors on Veterans Day - November 11, 2013. Building 1805 Rehabilitation (Lone Mountain Preschool) In the spring of 2013, Lone Mountain pre-school began rehabilitating building 1805 (constructed in 1932 as the hospital community center) along with its surrounding landscape in order to expand their existing pre-school facility (next door in building 1806) and extend their program and hours of operation. Their proposal, reviewed by the Trust in December 2012, included the following: exterior site work associated with play area expansion, seismic strengthening of the building, new heating system, alterations to the existing kitchen and bathrooms, minor door and window repairs and restoration, electrical, lighting and plumbing improvements, replacement of non-historic flooring, repainting and window treatments. New elements were be added to the interior and exterior of the building to accommodate building code and tenant functional requirements, including new lighting fixtures, new doors to replace existing non-historic doors, new toilet rooms for small children, new seismic strengthening elements, and new building systems such as sprinklers and heating systems. The tenant anticipates receiving a LEED Silver certification for the project. The school opened its new facility in time for the fall 2013 school year.

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit J: Tenant Preservation Projects

Building 101 Leasing & Tenant Improvements (Swirl) Building 101 is a Montgomery Street Barrack built in 1895 and rehabilitated to a “warm shell” condition along with its sister building (103) in 2011. This August, the Trust welcomed a new tenant to the building – Swirl, a San Francisco-based marketing and advertising firm – which occupies the second and third floors of the building. This project included minor modifications on these two floors and a small portion of the basement in order for the tenant to occupy the building. The work scope included the installation of two conference rooms with aluminum/glass storefronts, two kitchenettes, an acoustic ceilings treatment, a revised elevator vestibule entry, security and access controls, window coverings, paint, selective carpeting, and a dedicated basement-level server room and bike storage room. The improvements were made by the same contractor as building 103 and were be similar in kind. Work was completed in the late summer followed soon after by tenant occupancy. “Tree Fall” Installation in Building 95 The British artist Andy Goldsworthy installed a temporary (5 years), artwork on the interior of building 95 (Powder Magazine, 1863), a small (25 feet by 30 feet) masonry building that had previously stood vacant. The work, known as “Tree Fall” is comprised of a new freestanding structural frame and furred-out ceiling within the historic vaulted interior, from which is suspended a section of tree and an application of locally derived clay. The new ceiling and structural frame is anchored to an existing non-historic concrete slab and has no attachment points to the historic masonry portions of the structure. The remainder of the building will be untouched except for the removal and safe storage of the interior door, which will be replaced upon removal of the artwork. The installation has been designed by a structural engineer in order to avoid harm to the existing structure and for complete reversibility, and includes no artificial lighting. As part of the project, exterior ADA upgrades were made to ensure that the necessary parking and path of travel are provided for all visitors. No new signage was installed at the request of the artist; however, interpreters stationed at the site during open hours will provide information on the artwork and the historic building as will the Trust’s website. The tree branch to be used as the art work was fumigated to protect the building from bark beetle and other insect pests. The exhibit opened in October 2013. MISCELLANEOUS TENANT IMPROVEMENTS The text below highlights some minor scope projects that were managed by Presidio tenants. All described projects are documented in Exhibit C. Building 35 Occupied by the Bay School high school, this 1912 Building was a successful tax credit project that is maintained by the school with Presidio oversight. Due to the schedule of a school, larger preventative maintenance tasks are attended to in the summer months. In 2013 the school proposed a 5-year window maintenance scope for which the Trust compliance and maintenance staff provided comments and guidance. Work in the summer of 2013 included the repainting and sash cord repairs of identified windows in need of maintenance. Additional work performed included the construction of two new partitions and the removal one non-historic wall on the second floor to create more flexible classroom and administrative space. Building 644 Previously utilized as a Presidio Trust warehouse, this former Unit Motor Pool building constructed in 1951 is an eligible contributing structure to the Presidio NHLD and is a large open-plan warehouse building of approximately 13,640 square-feet. In July of 2013 the Trust

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit J: Tenant Preservation Projects

reviewed a proposal to operate a small beer production facility. Interior improvements are limited to the installation of a 20-gallon brewing system and minimal facility upgrades for production facility occupancy. Exterior improvements will be limited to vents installed in existing and new roof penetrations. The facility will not be open to the public for tours, visits, sales or consumption. Construction was completed in December of 2013. Building 933B - Batting Cages Tenancy Building 933 (Dope Shop and Boiler Room, 1921) is a contributing structure to the Presidio NHLD. The Trust rehabilitated the western portion of the building, known as 933B, to a “warm shell” condition in 2008. The eastern portion of the building was rehabilitated and leased seperately in 2006 as La Petit Baleen children’s swim school. In the fall of 2013, ScoutPro, LLC proposed to lease the 1,906 square foot suite 933B on a short-term basis (i.e., 4 years) to operate a family-focused batting cage facility with 4 cages and automated screen pitching machines. Tenant improvements are limited to a wall mural depicting a baseball scene, protective netting and/or screen covers over all fixtures and windows, installation of free-standing pitching machines/cages/screens, and specialized flooring overlay at the batting locations. Signage consistent with the West Crissy signage plan will be placed on the building. The four new batting cages are pre-manufactured (“plug and play”) self-contained installations that will be erected side-by-side, running north to south. The new facility is expected to open in early 2014. Quarters 1: Tenant Improvements 1 Muir Loop, or Quarters 1 as it is often known, was built in 1943 as the Commanding General’s Quarters. In the spring of 2013, the long-time tenants proposed to sponsor upgrades to the home's kitchen and the re-configuration of a former maid’s bathroom, adjacent to the kitchen. The proposal called for the removal and replacement of existing cabinetry, appliances, fixtures and finishes. Eliminating the tub in the adjacent bathroom allowed for more kitchen counter space. The passage door for servants that opens from the kitchen into a stairway and leads to the entryway was relocated to the interior side of the door frame, the door hardware was removed and placed in storage and the doorway was furred out on the kitchen side. The new partition will be removed and the door will be restored when the tenants vacate the unit. The primary reason for proposing the project is to increase efficiency and bring the kitchen area up to the same residential standards seen currently both in the Presidio and elsewhere. Construction began in mid-June 2013 and was completed by mid-August. 125b Riley ADA improvements 125b Riley is a residential unit in a two-story duplex built in 1909. The tenant proposed accessibility improvements including the installation of an interior stair chair lift, an exterior chair lift, and the construction of an ADA accessible exterior concrete pathway. All proposed work is reversible and non-invasive to the historic architectural and landscape features. The exterior chair lift required the removal of the southern section of the front porch rail; the railing is stored on site and will be re-installed upon tenant vacancy. New mechanical equipment, concrete pads and walkways will be removed and any new penetrations to building fabric will be repaired when tenant moves out of the unit.

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit K: Personnel Training

California Preservation Foundation (CPF) Workshop – California Historic Building Code & Other Codes Governing Historic Buildings In June 2013 the Trust helped plan and host a one-day CPF workshop focusing on recent updates to the CHBC as well as fire, accessibility and other codes that affect historic preservation projects. Titled, “Building Codes Governing Historic Buildings and Sites: Case Studies at the Presidio,” the workshop provided an opportunity to pair Trust experts with outside professionals to discuss the application of building codes in California and the Presidio. Trust staff contributed to the program, and led a series of in-field case study discussions using Trust projects to illustrate subject matter from the classroom workshop. Rob Thomson, Michelle Taylor, Rob Wallace, Michael Lamb and Trust Fire Marshall Matt Kiolbassa contributed to content development and delivery for the workshop. Representatives from local, state and federal preservation organizations and private firms also spoke and nearly 50 preservation professionals from around the state attended the workshop. Attendees toured the Presidio with the presenters to better understand application of the code in case study projects. Rob Thomson and Michelle Taylor coordinated and attended the event. National Preservation Institute (NPI) Classes at the Presidio Trust The Presidio Trust continued its relationship with the NPI in 2013, hosting two classes. The first was a three-day workshop “Introduction to Section 106” held in May. Rob Thomson assisted with coordination of the event and approximately 40 cultural resource professionals from around the country attended. The second course, “Identification and Management of Cultural Places,” was originally scheduled at an NPS venue however due to the government shutdown the seminar was re-located to a Trust facility. This two-day workshop held in October had limited attendance due to restrictions associated with the closure of the government. Presidio Trust Public Programs The Presidio Trust held a series of five lectures entitled, “Contemporary Historians at the Presidio.” Speakers were selected to present a wide variety of topics relevant to issues in contemporary society, and included Dana Priest, Journalist from the Washington Post; Ian Morris, Professor of History and Classics at Stanford University; Edward P. Von der Porten, Nautical Historian and Archaeologist; Albert Camarillo, Professor of History, Stanford University; Stephen Haller, Historian at the National Park Service; and Cameron Binkley from the Presidio of Monterey. This series was open to the public. Association for Preservation Technology (APT) Annual Conference Rob Wallace and Christina Wallace attended the 2013 APT conference held in New York City in October; the theme of the conference was “Preserving the Metropolis.” Christina Wallace was on the selection committee for the Publications Awards, an honor given to best articles published in the APT Communique for the year of 2013.The conference continued the APT tradition of setting the standard for preservation ideologies, to present the most current technologies to assist the preservation process, and to give voice to the international community for preservation findings. National Trust for Historic Preservation Annual Conference In November, Rob Thomson and Chandler McCoy attended the National Preservation Conference, “Preservation at the Crossroads,” in Indianapolis, Indiana. In addition to participating in conference seminars and field sessions, they accepted the 2013 National Trust/Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Award for Federal Partnerships in Historic Preservation on behalf of the agency. The award recognized the successful rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the Public Health Service Hospital district, which relied upon partnerships with Forest City development and other private sector entities.

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit K: Personnel Training

ICF International Webinar - NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act - A Close Look at the New CEQ/ACHP Handbook for Integrating NEPA and Section 106 In June 2013, Michelle Taylor attended a webinar provided by NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act. The webinar was hosted by ICF experts, Stephen Mikesell and Ron Bass who provided a comparison of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as informed by the new CEQ/ACHP handbook for integrating the two regulations. In addition to providing an overview of the roles and responsibilities of each regulation, they also discussed the concept of “substitution” of Section 106 for NEPA. US/ICOMOS International Intern Exchange Program The Trust continued its participation in the US/ICOMOS International Intern Exchange Program, which over the years has brought highly-qualified young professionals from around the globe to the Presidio. This year, Trust compliance and archaeology staff hosted Laura Matarese, an archaeologist and cultural heritage resource manager from Sydney, Australia for the summer. Laura worked with compliance staff to advance an effort to survey each of the 122 unoccupied historic buildings in the Presidio, document their condition, and make recommendations for their maintenance. Her resulting report has proven to be an enormously useful tool that will have lasting utility for the Trust. In addition to her survey report, Laura worked with Trust archaeology staff to document and summarize 15 years of heritage education programming efforts at the Presidio, and made recommendations for new programming that could be developed to complement next year’s launch of the new Presidio Heritage Center. Trust staff organized field trips to complement Laura’s time with us to other GGNRA sites (Fort Baker, Lands End, Alcatraz), Hamilton Air Force Base in Novato, and various historic building tours elsewhere in San Francisco. Romberg Tiburon Center Informal Advisory Collaboration In January, Rob Thomson and Michelle Taylor responded to a request from the director of the Romberg Tiburon Center, San Francisco State’s marine research institute housed at a former Navy facility in Marin County. Their field visit offered an opportunity to advise on treatment strategies for several World War II-era murals in the facility’s former officer’s club. The murals have been relatively untouched since executed in the early 1940s, and share some characteristics of Korean War-era murals in the Presidio’s building 1216. Thomson and Taylor offered conservation advice based on experience with similar murals at the Presidio, and were treated to a tour of the facility, which served as a coaling and later anti-submarine defense facility until it was decommissioned in 1958. Society for California Archaeology In March of 2013, the Society for California Archaeology 47th Annual Meeting was held in Berkeley, CA. The theme of the meeting was “The Past is our Present: California Archaeology for a Modern World.” Liz Clevenger, Trust Curator, was Program Chair and organized the meeting. She also organized and spoke at the Plenary Session Introduction, “The Past is Our Present: California Archaeology for a Modern World.” Kari Jones, Trust Archaeologist, gave a paper at the meeting entitled: “Searching for Sanchez: Lessons from the MacArthur Meadow Identification Testing Project in the Presidio of San Francisco”

2013 ANNUAL REPORT OF NHPA COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Exhibit L: Public Outreach Art in the Park In early 2013, the Presidio Trust conducted public outreach for two proposed public art pieces, both of which were envisioned as outdoor sculptures for public viewing within the vicinity of the Main Post. The first piece, a statue depicting Nikolai Rezanov and Concepcion Arguello and the second, a Bernar Venet sculpture, were jointly reviewed publically and within the Trust, as per the Presidio Trust Art Policy. The non-profit organization, United Humanitarian Mission (UHM), based in San Francisco made the Trust an unsolicited offer to commission a bronze statue that memorializes the intended marriage of Concepción Argüello and Nikolai Petrovich Rezanov. The UHM proposal described the statue as no greater than 9 feet high, 7 feet in length and 5 feet in width, set on a granite base, and located in the courtyard at the Chapel of Our Lady (45 Moraga Avenue). A plaque with interpretative text would be placed at the base in Russian, Spanish, and English. As stated by the project sponsor, the statue would commemorate the “Spanish era of Presidio, and its dealings with other nations, (that is, Russia) who, in their time and in their way, were building Nueva Espana into what would later become California…” A private collector presented an unsolicited offer to the Trust of one in the series of Indeterminate Line sculptures by Bernar Venet. Venet is a French-born (1941) conceptual artist who has exhibited his works in various locations throughout the world. In the 1980s and 1990s, he created a series of sculptural works titled Indeterminate Lines. These works were created by bending and twisting long square rods of steel with an overhead crane. The sculpture is approximately 30 feet high, 30 feet wide, and 20 feet deep, and weighs approximately 20 tons. The sculpture would be located on or adjacent to the new parkland that will be created by the Presidio Parkway project (tunnel top) at the Main Post Bluff, where it would frame views of the Golden Gate Bridge and Bay, and help draw visitors from Crissy Field up the bluff and into the Main Post. As per the Art Policy guidelines, the Trust completed an Art Panel Review, conducted three public site walks that addressed both proposals, and held a public comment period ending on February 8. In all, the Trust received around 25 comments from members of the public and organizations for both art proposals representing a wide range of opinions on the proposals. On February 28, 2013, N2 reviewed the two projects and provided comments to the Presidio Trust Board of Directors. As part of the N2 review, Rob Thomson evaluated the potential effects of each artwork as proposed under the NHPA and reached several conclusions as to how the projects might be modified in order to avoid adverse effects. His evaluation was based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and on potential effects to each of the seven aspects of integrity (association, setting, feeling, location, materials, workmanship and design) relative to both specific locations and to the National Historic Landmark District as a whole. Following the conclusion of the N2 meeting, the analysis and public comment for two potential art acquisitions were presented to the Board. After considering the opinions rendered at each step in the procedure, the Board concluded that the Trust should decline both offers. The Board noted that the Rezanov & Arguello story would best be interpreted through exhibition and public programming at the Officers’ Club or in the Heritage Center, rather than the precedent-setting placement of commemorative statuary in the park. Additionally, the Board expressed concerns about placing such sculpture in the Chapel yard, an active archaeological site. The Board’s consensus was that Indeterminate Line is an

exceptional work and a generous gift, but that its acceptance and placement on the future bluff at the foot of the Main Parade Ground is premature since designs for the bluff have not yet been developed. Public Review of the Proposed Heritage Center Exhibit Beginning in 2014, Building 50 will house the Trust’s heritage program and a series of exhibits on the Presidio’s history. The Heritage exhibit design will add state-of-the-art exhibits, furnishings and multi-media installations into the historic and non-historic (1972) portions of the Officers’ Club (building 50). These exhibits will be featured elements of the visitor experience in the orientation lobby, Mesa and Anza Rooms, Moraga Hall and the Heritage Gallery on the ground floor of the 1972 addition. In 2013, through an interactive exhibit, park visitors were invited to learn about the ongoing design, historic research, and program development for the Officers’ Club. The public had an opportunity to view sketches of the exhibits being planned, learn about proposed educational offerings, and contribute to the development of a calendar of public events. The exhibit preview also afforded an opportunity to attend talks, tours and lectures associated with Heritage at the Presidio. Future Plans at the Former Commissary Site In 2013, the Presidio Trust invited the public to comment on the future of a former commissary site at Mid-Crissy Field on Old Mason Street. The site is currently occupied by a 97,000 sq/ft non-historic commissary building housing a retail tenant (Sports Basement). In December 2011, the Presidio Trust completed the Mid-Crissy Area Design Guidelines, which established a series of specific planning, design and land use principles for the area, and in November 2012 the Trust issued a Request for Concept Proposals (RFCP). The Trust received sixteen responses and the public was invited to provide comment through a series of engagements, including at a public meeting of the Presidio Trust Board of Directors held in April 2013. After considering public comment and engaging with a number of the teams directly, the Trust invited three finalists - The Bridge/Sustainability Institute, Lucas Cultural Arts Museum, and The Presidio Exchange - to continue in the process via a Request for Proposals (RFP) that was issued in May 2013. In the summer, the three teams presented their concepts for informal public review at various public meetings and an open house. The three teams submitted comprehensive proposals for public and Trust review on September 16, 2013. On September 23rd the teams presented their projects at a public meeting hosted by the Presidio Trust followed by a question and answer session. The Presidio Trust Board of Directors collected additional comments at a Public Board Meeting in October. Based on public comment and Trust reviews, the Board of Directors requested further clarification and/or design revisions from each of the three teams. Revised final proposals are scheduled to be submitted for public and Trust review in January of 2014, followed by a decision by the Board shortly thereafter. Compliance review for the project will commence in 2014.

Appendix A

Curriculum Vitae 2009

Eric Brandan BlindPresidio Archaeology Lab

Post Office Box 29052

San Francisco, CA 94129 415-561-5091/561-5089

eblind@presidiotrust.gov

Employment

2009-present Principal Archaeologist Presidio Trust, Presidio of San Francisco CA 2008-2009 Senior Archaeologist Presidio Trust, Presidio of San Francisco CA 2002-2007 Archaeologist Presidio Trust, Presidio of San Francisco CA 1999-2002 Archaeological Technician Presidio Trust, Presidio of San Francisco CA 1997 [autumn] Research Associate Florida International University, Miami FL

National Service

1998 Archaeology Specialist AmeriCorps Volunteer, Golden Gate National Rec. Area, CA 1997 Museum Specialist AmeriCorps Volunteer, Everglades National Park, FL

Volunteer & Consulting Work

2009 [spring] Architectural Conservator Stabilization of the Shunet el-Zebib, Abydos Egypt 2007 [autumn] Consulting Archaeologist San Carlos Cathedral Restoration, Monterey CA 2007 [spring] Architectural Conservator Lord Cultural Resources, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 2005-2006 Archaeological Consultant ArchaeoCommons, San Francisco, CA 2003-present Archaeologist/Photographer Mission Dolores, San Francisco, CA 2001 [summer] Archaeological Technician American Museum of Natural History

Education – Degrees

- - - - Ph.D. Anthropology [ongoing] University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley CA 2007 M.A. Anthropology University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley CA 1996 B.A. Sociology/Anthropology Saint Mary’s College of Maryland, St. Mary’s City MD.

Education – Field Classes

2004 Archaeological Field Methods Boston University International Programs, Menorca Spain 2004 Studies in European Archaeology Boston University International Programs, Menorca Spain 1998 Techniques of Archaeological Excavation Cabrillo College, Aptos CA

Peer Reviewed Articles

Blind, Eric Brandan, Sannie Kenton Osborn, Barbara L. Voss, and Liz N. Clevenger 2008 The Presidio of San Francisco in Archaeology in America: An Encyclopedia. Edited by

Francis P. McManamon, Linda S. Cordell, Kent Lightfoot, and George R. Milner. Greenwood Publishing Group. Westport CT.

Blind, Eric Brandan, Barbara Voss, Sannie Osborn and Leo Barker 2004 El Presidio de San Francisco: At the Edge of Empire. Historical Archaeology. Vol 38, No. 3.

Meshaka, Walter, and Eric Brandan Blind 2001 Movement and Reproduction in the Striped Mud Turtle (Kinosternon baurii) of the Everglades. Chelonian

Conservation and Biology. Vol 4, No 1.

Publications Clevenger, Liz N., Eric Brandan Blind, Sannie Kenton Osborn 2007 Methodologies for Documenting Colonial California: Case Studies from El Presidio de San Francisco. Society for California Archaeology Newsletter. Vol 41, No 2. Blind, Eric and Liz Clevenger. 2006 El Presidio de San Francisco Officers’ Club Project. Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter: 39(1):40-1. Blind, Eric Brandan

2005 If these Walls could Talk….Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology. Volume 18. Crosby, Anthony, Sannie Osborn, Vance Bente, Leo Barker, Megan Wilkinson, and Eric Blind

2004 Preliminary Condition Assessment, Building 50, Presidio of San Francisco, California. Society for California Archaeology Newsletter. Vol 38, No. 1.

Blind, Eric, Leo Barker, and Sannie Osborn 2000 Digging at the Golden Gate. Society for California Archaeology Newsletter. Vol 34, No.3

Selected Professional Papers “Interpreting Space: Transforming the Visitor Experience in a National Park” prepared for the

Society for California Archaeology. San Jose, CA. March 2007 “Deconstructing the Adobe Officers’ Club” prepared for the Society for Historical Archaeology

Williamsburg, VA. January 2007 “The Botanical Ecology of Culture Contact” prepared for the Society for California Archaeology.

Ventura, CA. March 2006 “The World as Viewed from Within these Walls” prepared for the Society for Historical Archaeology.

Sacramento, CA. January 2006

“The Hidden Murals of Mission Dolores” prepared for the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia Bi-National Conference. Tijuana, Mexico. November 2005

“ArchaeoCommons: A Digital Future for Our Common Past” presented with Michael Ashley at the Archaeological Research Facility of UC Berkeley CA. October 2005

“Reckoning with Meaning at Contact Sites” prepared for the Society for American Archaeology.

Salt Lake City, UT. April 2005

“Ethnobotanical and Scientific Contributions” prepared for Spain’s Legacy in the Pacific Conference. San Diego, CA. September 2004

“If these Walls could Speak…” prepared for the Society for California Archaeology.

Riverside, CA. March 2004 “17th Century Bronze Cannons of El Presidio” prepared for the Society for Historical Archaeology.

Providence, RI. January 2003

“El Presidio de San Francisco: At the Edge of Empire” prepared for the Society for Historical Archaeology. Mobile, AL. January 2002

Invited Forums “Converging Communities in Digital Heritage” discussant at the Society for American Archaeology.

Vancouver, Canada. April 2008

Manuscripts and Reports 2006 Officers’ Club Structural History & Condition Assessment, on file at the Presidio Archaeology Lab 2004 Levantar: Presidio Archaeological Management Strategy, on file at Presidio Trust Library 2000 Letterman Digital Arts Archaeological Investigation, on file at Northwest Information Center

Media Coverage & Public Presentations Featured on Incompletely Visible: The Legacy of the Bay Area Missions DVD, Society for California Pioneers 2009 Reported on in San Francisco Chronicle. “Radar reveals San Francisco’s buried Presidio.” September 20, 2008 Featured on Bay Area Backroads: The Presidio. KRON 4 Television. Fall 2007 Featured on America’s History in the Making “Contested Territories” Oregon Public Broadcasting.

PBS Television 2007 Presented “The Last Adobe Building on the Presidio” at Presidio Science. May 11, 2007 Presented “The Hidden Murals of Mission Dolores” lecture at Il Cenacolo Cultural Club. July 21, 2005 Reported on in San Francisco Chronicle. “Presidio Walls Speak of Past.” June 27, 2005 Featured on Spark. “Through the Lens”. KQED Television Broadcast, PBS. January 26, 2005 Interviewed in Archaeology. “Newsbriefs: Saved by Neglect”. Volume 57 Number 3, May/June 2004 Featured in San Francisco Chronicle Magazine. “Facetime: Floored.” May 30, 2004 Featured in ETC. Magazine. “Mission Discovery.” Spring, 2004 Interviewed on California Report. “Native Americans and Mission Dolores”. KQED Radio, NPR. March 8, 2004 Featured on Evening Magazine. CBS Channel 5. San Francisco. March 8, 2004 Interviewed on Here and Now. “Native American Paintings Restored”. WBUR Radio, NPR February 9, 2004 Reported on in San Francisco Chronicle. Headline: “Centuries old murals revealed in Mission Dolores.”

January 29, 2004 Presented “Levantar: Archaeology and El Presidio de San Francisco” at the Stanford University and

Presidio Trust Public Lecture Series. July 9, 2003

Awards 2004 California Governor’s Historic Preservation Award, for the Mission Dolores Digital Mural Project 2002 California Governor’s Historic Preservation Award, for the Garbology! Education Program

Grants

2008 Federal Block Grant for Higher Education – U.C. Berkeley 2007 Federal Block Grant for Higher Education – U.C. Berkeley 2006 Federal Block Grant for Higher Education – U.C. Berkeley 2004 AmeriCorps National Service Education Grant – Boston University

Teaching Experience 2008 [autumn] Prospection in Depth, with the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training 2008 [spring] Invited Lecturer: Archaeology – A Biased and Democratic History, for Stanford University 2008 [spring] Invited Lecturer: Archaeology – A Biased and Democratic History, for U.C. Berkeley 2007-present Site Conservation and Adobe Architecture, for CA State Parks – Mott Training Center 2007-2008 Digitally Documenting and Representing Cultural Heritage, with U.C. Berkeley 2003-present Advanced Workshop for the California Archaeological Site Stewardship Program 2001-2006 Garbology! Education Program, with the Crissy Field Education Center 1998 Buffalo Soldiers Education Program, with the National Park Service

Committee & Advisory Roles

Committee Member International Council on Monuments and Sites [ICOMOS] International Scientific

Committee - Earthen Architecture. 2007-present Committee Member US/ICOMOS Scientific Committee - Earthen Architecture. 2004-present Project Advisor US/ICOMOS International Scholar Alexandra Vadinska of Bulgaria, 2006 Project Advisor US/ICOMOS International Scholar Trinidad Rico of Argentina, 2005 Project Advisor US/ICOMOS International Scholar Veronica Dado of the Philippines, 2003, 2004 Project Advisor Tennessee Hollow Watershed Archaeological Project. Professor Barbara Voss

Stanford Archaeological Center. 2003-present. Project Advisor Funston Avenue Archaeological Research Project. Barbara Voss Ph.D Dissertation

Project. UC Berkeley Archaeological Research Facility. 1999-2001.

Professional Affiliations

SAA Society for American Archaeology ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites SHA Society for Historical Archaeology CMSA California Mission Studies Association SCA Society for California Archaeology

Certifications & Professional Development Statistical Research Institute Foundation - NHPA Section 106: Principles and Practice, 2006 SHA: Brian Fagan Ph.D. and Left Coast Press - Publishing for Historical Archaeologists, 2006 Graphics Press LLC & Edward Tufte Ph.D. - Presenting Data & Information, 2005 SCA: Frank Bayham Ph.D. - Distinguishing Human and Non-Human Osteological Remains, 2005 National Preservation Institute - Archaeological Curation, Conservation & Collections Management, 2002 Association for Preservation Technology International - Conservation of Historic Adobe, 2001 National Preservation Institute - Integrating Cultural Resources into NEPA Compliance, 2001 National Preservation Institute - Consultation with Indian Tribes on Cultural Resource Issues, 2000 National Preservation Institute - NHPA Section 106 Compliance: An Introduction, 2000

Posters

“Digitally Documenting Colonial California” the 2007 California Archaeology Month Poster

Websites

Co-creator: www.missiondoloresmural.com Contributor: www.presidio.gov/history/archaeology 

Creator: www.blind‐spot.org

LIZ NOELANI CLEVENGER

Clevenger 1

Curator of Archaeology, The Presidio Trust P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129

(415) 561-5086 (office) / (415) 516-5089 (fax) lclevenger@presidiotrust.gov

EDUCATION

2004 M.A., Cultural and Social Anthropology (Emphasis: Archaeology), Stanford University, Stanford, California 2003 B.A., Archaeology (Minor: Art History), Stanford University, Stanford, California ADDITIONAL TRAINING

2012 Leadership Skills for Non-Supervisors, U.S. Office of Personnel Management Flaking, Fragile, and Fragmentary: Safe Lifting and Storage of Delicate Objects in the Field, Society for California Archaeology 2011 NPS 440: Effective Interpretation of Archaeological Resources, National Park Service and Presidio Trust 2010 Leading Technical Professionals, BlessingWhite 2009 Art Handling Workshop, American Association of Museums

3D Digital Rock Art Documentation and Preservation Training Program, Cultural Heritage Imaging Digital Directions: Fundamentals of Creating and Managing Digital Collections, Northeast Document Conservation Center Collection Management Databases, Northern States Conservation Center Creating an Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan for Collections, California Association of Museums and Balboa Art Conservation Center

2008 Prospection in Depth: A Workshop for Developing Advanced Geophysical Surveying and Interpretive Skills, National Council

for Preservation Technology & Training and the Presidio Trust Writing Archaeology: How to Write and Publish in Archaeology, Society for California Archaeology

Filemaker Databases Workshop, University of California, Berkeley – Archaeological Research Facility 2007 Collections Management Policies for Museums and Related Institutions, Northern States Conservation Center 2006 Project Archaeology Facilitator Training, Bureau of Land Management

Section 106: Principles and Practice, SRI Foundation GIS Workshop, Society for Historical Archaeology and ESRI

2005 Section 106 Compliance: An Introduction to Professional Practice Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation

Act, SWCA Environmental Consultants Distinguishing Human and Non-Human Osteological Remains, Society for California Archaeology and CSU Chico 24-Hour Hazardous Waste Operations Training, Network Environmental Systems, Inc.

WORK EXPERIENCE

2009-present Curator of Archaeology, Presidio Trust, San Francisco, California. Manage the Heritage Program’s archaeology

laboratory. Responsible for the curation and interpretation of archaeological and museum collections. Perform registration, collections management and archival tasks to maintain, utilize and preserve collections in conjunction with federal standards and best practices. Determine conservation needs and acquire services to address those needs. Continue development of collections management and curation program. Conduct and facilitate original research and analysis to increase knowledge about collections. Develop and implement interpretive materials including exhibitions, programs, written materials, and other outreach products. Conduct archaeological preservation training for in-house staff and contractors. Provide assistance to field projects that are likely to result in collections. Supervise seasonal, temporary, volunteer, or intern employees as needed to carry out curatorial activities.

LIZ NOELANI CLEVENGER

Clevenger 2

2005-2009 Archaeological Collections Specialist, Presidio Trust, San Francisco, California. Responsible for archaeological collections management, laboratory work, and outreach programs. Developed and implemented archaeological collections management program (policies and procedures) in accordance with federal laws, regulations and professional standards. Maintained paper and electronic records of acquisitions, accessions, loans, collections management activities, and artifact catalog; maintained artifact and associated documentation collections; processed and analyzed archaeological collections; prepared analytical and technical reports. Conducted monitoring, survey, and reporting for construction projects, including identification, evaluation, and treatment of historic properties. Liaisoned with operations crews to ensure protection of historic resources, including managing the acquisition and recording of unexpected historic artifact discoveries made during construction/development projects and the development and implementation of an annual “Park Resources Training” course (with Damien Raffa). Coordinated weekly activities for volunteers, internship projects for undergraduates, and educational tours and field trips. Coordinated the maintenance of equipment and lab while ensuring the protection of the archaeological collections.

2004-2005 Archaeological Technician, Pacific Legacy Incorporated, Berkeley, California. Staff archaeologist for a CRM firm.

Duties included the identification, evaluation, and treatment of historic properties in compliance with NHPA, NEPA and CEQA. Prepared site reports, conducted data recovery excavation and monitored construction sites. Conducted laboratory processing, artifact analysis, electronic data management, collections assessments, report writing, technical editing, and archival research.

2004 Assistant Field Director, Tennessee Hollow Watershed Archaeological Project, Stanford University and Presidio

Trust, San Francisco, California. Assisted with project management, including publicity, personnel selection, and procuring equipment and supplies. Managed field staff, student training and excavation. Contributed to technical reporting.

2003-2004 Research Assistant, Market Street Chinatown Archaeological Project, Stanford University, Stanford, California.

Managed large historic artifact collection and computerized Access artifact database, including activities such as inventory, maintenance, quality control, and archival rehousing. Oversaw website updates and students’ cataloging work. Contributed to report writing and production.

2002-2004 Research Assistant, Stanford Archaeology Lab, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Conducted laboratory

work and analysis projects with emphasis on historic materials and ceramics. Assisted with course development, bibliographic research, and report writing and production.

Peer Advisor, Stanford Archaeology Program. Advised current and prospective undergraduate archaeology students and planned informational and social events for students.

PUBLICATIONS

2013 [Clevenger, Liz N., ed.] The Past is our Present: California Archaeology for a Modern World. Society for California

Archaeology 47th Annual Meeting Program, March 7-10, Berkeley, California. Society for California Archaeology: Chico, California.

2012 Clevenger, Liz N. Archaeological Collections Management Guidelines. Presidio Archaeology Lab – Presidio Trust: San

Francisco, California. 2010 Voss, Barbara L., ed., with contributions by Heather Blind, Elizabeth Clevenger, Beatrice Cox, Megan S. Kane, Cheryl Smith-

Lintner, Erica Simmons, and Barbara Voss. “Tennessee Hollow Watershed Archaeology Project Final Report – 2005-2010 Laboratory Studies on Collections from El Polín Springs.” Department of Anthropology and Stanford Archaeology Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California.

2008 Blind, Eric Brandon, Sannie Kenton Osborn, Barbara L. Voss, and Liz N. Clevenger. “The Presidio of San Francisco,” in

Archaeology in America: An Encyclopedia. Francis P. McManamon, Linda S. Cordell, Kent Lightfoot and George R. Milner, eds. Greenwood Publishing Group: Westport, CT.

2007 Clevenger, Liz N., Eric Brandon Blind, and Sannie Kenton Osborn. “Methods for Documenting Colonial California: Case

Studies from El Presidio de San Francisco.” Society for California Archaeology Newsletter: 41(2):24-31.

LIZ NOELANI CLEVENGER

Clevenger 3

2006 Blind, Eric and Liz Clevenger. “El Presidio de San Francisco Officers’ Club Project.” Society for Historical Archaeology

Newsletter: 39(1):40-1. 2005 Voss, Barbara L., with contributions by Heather Blind, Stacey Camp, Elizabeth Clevenger, Jenn McCann, Beatrice Cox, Jack

Meyer, Ingrid Newquist, Virginia Popper, Joanne Sidlovsky, Erica Simmons, and Michelle Touton. “Tennessee Hollow Watershed Archaeology Project 2004-2005 Annual Progress Report – Excavations at El Polín Springs.” Department of Cultural and Social Anthropology, Stanford University, Stanford, California.

2004 Clevenger, Elizabeth N. “Reconstructing Context and Assessing Research Potential: Feature 20 from the San José Market

Street Chinatown.” Master’s Thesis, Department of Cultural and Social Anthropology, Stanford University, Stanford, California.

Voss, Barbara L., with contributions by Heather Blind, Elizabeth Clevenger, Karis Eklund, Ingrid Newquist, Virginia Popper,

Cheryl A. Smith, Michelle St. Clair, and Bryn Williams. “Tennessee Hollow Watershed Archaeology Project 2003-2004 Annual Progress Report – Test Excavation at El Polín Springs.” Department of Cultural and Social Anthropology, Stanford University, Stanford, California.

Stacey Camp, Elizabeth Clevenger, Barbara Voss, and Bryn Williams, with contributions by Beverly Chang, Jun Frank,

Cameron Matthews, and Erica Simmons. “2003-2004 Progress Report Market Street Chinatown Archaeological Project.” Stanford Archaeology Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California.

SELECT PRESENTATIONS

2013 Plenary Session Introduction, “The Past is Our Present: California Archaeology for a Modern World,” 2013 Annual Meeting

of the Society for California Archaeology, Berkeley, California. 2011 Forum Participant, “Archaeologists and Local Communities: Emerging Approaches in Community Archaeology,” 2011

Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Rohnert Park, California. 2010 Forum Chair, “From the Front Lines: A Curation Working Group for Collection Managers and Curators,” 2010 Annual

Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Riverside, California. 2008 “Research Design Charette and Beyond: Charting the Future of Archaeology at El Presidio de San Francisco,” paper

presented at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Burbank, California. 2007 “Public Outreach at the Presidio of San Francisco,” invited paper presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Society for

California Archaeology, San José, California. Symposium Co-Chair (with Sannie Kenton Osborn), “Cultural Heritage Preservation, Education and Tourism: El Presidio de San Francisco: the Site, the Classroom, the Destination,” 2007 Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, San José, California. “The Adobe Officers’ Club: Spanish Colonial Architecture at El Presidio de San Francisco,” invited paper presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the California Mission Studies Association, San Francisco, California. Symposium Co-Chair (with Barbara Voss, Stanford University), “Colonial San Francisco: Art, Artifacts, and Archives,” 2007 Annual Meeting of the California Mission Studies Association, San Francisco, California. (with Heather Blind) “Up to Our Elbows in Nightsoil: the Taylor Street Privies Project,” paper presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Williamsburg, Virginia.

2006 (with Heather Blind) “Up to Our Elbows in Nightsoil,” invited paper presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Society for

California Archaeology, Ventura, California Symposium Chair, “From the Borrow Pit to the Privy: Two Centuries of History at the Presidio of San Francisco,” 2006

Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Ventura, California.

LIZ NOELANI CLEVENGER

Clevenger 4

“Deconstructing the Presidio Officers’ Club: Working with the Harris Matrix,” invited paper presented at the 2006 Annual

Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Sacramento, California Symposium Co-Chair (with Eric Brandan Blind), “Mud, Wood, Stones, Matrices and Maps: Exploring the Presidio of San

Francisco,” 2006 Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Sacramento, California 2004 “Reconstructing Context and Assessing Research Potential: Preliminary Findings from Feature 20 of the Market Street

Chinatown,” paper presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Riverside, California TEACHING EXPERIENCE

2013 Guest Lecturer, “Archaeology as a Profession,” Stanford University 2012 Guest Lecturer, “Archaeology as a Profession,” Stanford University Instructor, “Presidio Archaeology 101,” Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy 2011 Guest Lecturer, “Archaeology as a Profession,” Stanford University 2010 Guest Lecturer, “Archaeology as a Career,” Stanford University 2009 Guest Lecturer, “Archaeology as a Career,” Stanford University 2008 Guest Lecturer, “Archaeology as a Career,” Stanford University 2007 Guest Lecturer, “Archaeology as a Career,” Stanford University Guest Lecturer, “American Material Culture,” University of California at Berkeley Workshop Instructor, “Project Archaeology Facilitator Training,” Society for California Archaeology PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

2012-2013 2013 Annual Meeting Program Chair, Society for California Archaeology 2006-2007 2007 Annual Meeting Public Day Coordinator, Society for California Archaeology AWARDS

2003-2004 Cultural and Social Anthropology Prize for Academic Performance by a Masters Student, Stanford University PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

American Association of Museums Society for California Archaeology PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS

Registered Professional Archaeologist 24-Hour HAZWOPER Lead and Asbestos Awareness Hazard Communication CPR and First Aid

Kari Len Jones, M.A. email: kjones@presidiotrust.gov

Page 1

QUALIFICATIONS

I have been involved in both academic archaeology and cultural resource management since 1997, with 12 years of experience both in North America and abroad. My cultural resource management experience includes five years of conducting and supervising compliance-oriented archaeological work including pedestrian surveys, archaeological site recording, monitoring of ground disturbing activities, subsurface testing, and data recovery in both historical and prehistoric contexts throughout California. In addition to my extensive fieldwork experience, I am a skilled writer and have authored numerous archaeological field reports and compliance documents. I have broad experience in completing compliance-oriented projects in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). I am also conversant in various other state and federal authorities, including Section 110 of the NHPA, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). I have extensive laboratory experience and am competent in lithic analysis and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). I am currently completing my doctoral research at the University of California, Berkeley where my academic research focuses on hunter-gatherer mobility and landscape use in prehistoric North America.

EDUCATION Ph.D.

(Candidate) December 2010 (expected) University of California, Berkeley, Department of Anthropology. Dissertation Topic: Hunter- Gatherer Landscapes Advancement to Candidacy: May 2005

M.A. January 2002

University of California, Berkeley, Department of Anthropology B.A. January 2000

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Anthropology, Magna cum

Laude PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

CURRENT POSITION

July-2009-Present Archaeologist: Presidio Trust, Presidio of San Francisco. Federal Agency

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE

2004- July 2009 Supervisor: Pacific Legacy, Inc., Berkeley, California. Cultural resources management firm.

Duties and Responsibilities

Project management and supervision of cultural resource investigations including survey, recording, monitoring, test excavation, and data recovery at prehistoric and historical archaeological sites

Kari Len Jones, M.A. email: kjones@presidiotrust.gov

Page 2

Development of archaeological research designs and management plans Prehistoric and historic archeological site testing and evaluation to determine National

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) significance and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) importance

NEPA, NHPA, and CEQA regulatory compliance Technical report writing for a variety of compliance-related projects and contributing to

compliance documents, including EIR and EIS sections Technical field illustration and mapping, including the use of GPS and GIS Collaborating and consulting with diverse stakeholders including Native Americans,

private landowners, construction professionals, and governmental representatives Developing and managing substantial budgets for archaeological field investigations

laboratory analyses, and reporting Representing employees as a member of the corporate board

Recent Key Projects:

2009 Project Manager. Tehachapi Renewables Transmission Project (TRTP), Kern,

Los Angeles, and San Bernardino Counties, California. I managed Pacific Legacy’s team for the TRTP, over 200 miles of proposed transmission line and associated facilities in Kern, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino counties. My responsibilities included scoping, managing budgets, designing research, and drafting and implementing cultural resources management plans subject to multiple agency review. I have also participated in EIR/EIS review and assisted the principal investigator, Dr. Thomas Jackson, in the drafting of a Programmatic Agreement between the Angeles National Forest, the Army Corps of Engineers, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the California Public Utilities Commission.

2008 Project Manager and Field Director. Cal-Am Coastal Water Project, Monterey

County, California. I served as field director for archaeological survey of proposed components of the Coastal Water Project on the Monterey Peninsula from Moss Landing to Monterey. Eighteen archaeological sites, both historical and prehistoric, were visited and updated as part of this effort and three new historical resources were recorded. As part of this project, an updated inventory of resources within the Lower Presidio Historic Park was completed and several previously recorded resources updated in accordance with the National Register Nomination for the Presidio of Monterey Historic District. In addition to completing the reporting of the archaeological survey, I wrote the cultural resource sections of the Draft EIR, currently under public review.

2008 Project Manager and Field Director. Belgian Anticline 3D Seismic Project, Kern

County, California. I served as project manager for an inventory of over 100 resources within a 33,000-acre area proposed for 3D geophysical exploration in Kern County. I directed field survey of 4000 acres of Bureau of Land Management-administered land within the greater project area and completed the reporting in order to assist the BLM in complying with Section 106 of the NHPA.

Kari Len Jones, M.A. email: kjones@presidiotrust.gov

Page 3

2007 Project Manager and Principal Author. New Melones Resource Management

Plan, Tuolumne and Calaveras Counties, California. I completed a Cultural Resources Management Plan for the New Melones Reservoir Project area in Tuolumne and Calaveras Counties, synthesizing over 30 years of archaeological research. This project included assessing the NRHP nomination that guides the Bureau of Reclamation’s management of resources within the New Melones Reservoir area. Over 80 previous cultural resource reports and 650 cultural resources were incorporated into a single management plan and accompanying GIS database.

2007 Field Director. Big Creek ALP Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

Relicensing Project, Fresno County, California. I directed archaeological testing at 13 archaeological sites (7 prehistoric and 5 historical) near Shaver and Florence Lakes and completed National Register of Historic Places evaluations of all13 sites tested. I also coordinated with North Fork Mono, a federally recognized tribe, to ensure proper treatment of recovered Native American cultural materials. All work was completed to ensure compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA.

2006 Field Director and Principal Author. Highway 99 and Hammer Lane

Interchange Project, Stockton, San Joaquin County, California. I directed data recovery at one historic and two prehistoric sites discovered during highway construction. I also planned and directed the removal of eight Native American burials, including two burials inadvertently discovered while I was monitoring construction following data recovery efforts. I was responsible for coordinating with the Most Likely Descendent, Native American monitor, CALTRANS archaeologist, and construction personnel to ensure the proper removal and treatment of human remains.

2005 Field Director. Yosemite Creek Campground Project, Yosemite National Park,

Mariposa County, California. I planned and implemented data recovery excavations at CA-MRP-123/136, a prehistoric site within Yosemite National Park. I also implemented a testing program designed to evaluate the resource for eligibility on the NRHP and reported the results of those investigations to assist Yosemite National Park in complying with Section 106 of the NHPA.

TECHNICAL REPORTS

Bartoy, K., K. Jones, J. Holson, and E. Reese

2007 Cultural Resources Literature Search, Inventory, and National Register of Historic Places Evaluations for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction EIS/EIR, El Dorado, Placer, and Sacramento Counties, California. Prepared for: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA.

Holm, L. and K. Jones and T. Jackson 2009 Construction Phase Management Plan for Segments 4-11 of the Tehachapi Renewables Transmission

Project, Kern and Los Angeles Counties, California. Prepared for: Southern California Edison, Angeles

Kari Len Jones, M.A. email: kjones@presidiotrust.gov

Page 4

National Forest, California Public Utilities Commission, and the Army Corps of Engineers for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, NEPA, and CEQA.

Jackson, T. and K. Jones 2009 Supplemental Survey Report and Cultural Resources Management Plan for Segment 3B of the

Tehachapi Renewables Transmission Line Project, Kern and Los Angeles Counties, California. Prepared for: Southern California Edision for compliance with CEQA.

Jones K. 2009 Archaeological Survey Report for the Cal-Am Coastal Water Project Draft EIR, Monterey County,

California. Prepared for Environmental Science Associates for compliance with CEQA.

2008 Archaeological Survey of 4000 acres for the Belgian Anticline 3D Seismic Project, Kern County, California. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA.

Jones, K. and D. Craig Young 2006 Final Extended Phase I Report: Geoarchaeological Investigations for the West Merced Overhead and

Bear Creek Structures Replacement 10-MER-99 K.P. 25.4/27.8 (P.M. 15.8/17.3) EA: 10-0K0200. Prepared for: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for compliance with CEQA.

Jones, K. and J. Holson 2006a Archaeological Investigations and National Register of Historic Places Evaluations at CA-SJO-301, CA-

SJO-302H, and CA-SJO-303 State Route 99 and Hammer Lane Interchange, Stockton, San Joaquin County, California. Prepared for: Parsons Brinkerhoff Construction and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for compliance with CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA

2006b Archaeological Test Excavation at CA-SJO-19/H for the South Quierolo Project, Lathrop, San Joaquin County, California. Prepared for: Mark Thomas and Company for compliance with CEQA.

Jones K. and M. Greenberg 2009 Archaeological Survey Report for the San Antonio Reservoir Hypolimnetic Oxygenation System,

Alameda County, CA. Prepared for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission in accordance with Water Improvement System (WISP) guidelines for compliance with CEQA.

Jones, K. and T. Jackson 2006 Archaeological Inventory for the Orion 3D Geophysical Survey Project, Kern County, California. Prepared for: U.S. Bureau of Land Management for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. 2007 Cultural Resources Inventory for the Proposed Southern California Edison Lee Vining to Conway

Summit Communications Line Project, Mono County, California. Prepared for: Southern California Edison, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and Inyo National Forest for compliance with CEQA, NEPA, and Section 106 of the NHPA.

Jones, K. and E. Reese 2007 Cultural Resources Management Plan for the New Melones Lake Project Area, Calaveras and Tuolumne

Counties, California. Prepared for: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Jones, K., K. Bartoy, and L. Holm

Kari Len Jones, M.A. email: kjones@presidiotrust.gov

Page 5

2006 Archaeological Survey Report for the Middle Baker Ranch and Peninsula Project, Tuolumne County, California. Prepared for: Altmann Construction for compliance with CEQA.

Jones, K., K. Bartoy, and J. Holson

2005 Archeological Testing, Data Recovery, and National Register of Historical Places Evaluation of CA-MRP-123/136 at Yosemite Creek Campground, Yosemite National Park, California. Publications in

Anthropology No. 28. Prepared for: Yosemite National Park for compliance with the NHPA and NEPA. Reese. E., K. Jones, and J. Holson 2007 Archaeological Survey Report for the Abbott / Turkey Run Remediation Lake County, California.

Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in compliance with NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA.

Way K., T. Jackson, and K. Jones 2009 Testing, Data Recovery, and CRHR Evaluation of CA-KER-2821/H, the Bean Spring Complex.

Prepared for: Southern California Edison and the California Public Utilities Commission for compliance with CEQA.

HONORS AND AWARDS

2001-2004 National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship 1997 National Science Foundation Undergraduate Research Award

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS &MEMBERSHIPS

Member, Society for American Archaeology Member, Southeastern Archaeological Conference Member, Society for California Archaeology

PROFESSIONAL REFERENCES Dr. Margaret Conkey

Professor of Anthropology University of California, Berkeley Office: (510) 642-6914 Dr. Kent Lightfoot Professor of Anthropology University of California, Berkeley Office: (510) 642-2422 Kevin Bartoy Director of Archaeology The Hermitage

Home of President Andrew Jackson 4580 Rachel’s Lane Nashville, TN 37076 Office: (615) 889-2941

Michael LambLandscape Architect

2314 Webster Street

Berkeley, CA 94705

510/843-8626

michaellambrla@yahoo.com

mlamb@presidiotrust.gov

Registration: Landscape Architect California License No. 2778

EDUCATION

MLA 1983, Harvard University, Graduate School of Design

BA Landscape Architecture 1979, University of California at Berkeley

AWARDS AND ACTIVITIES

U.C. Berkeley Visiting Lecturer (class instructor)

Spring 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011

U.C. Extension Landscape Architecture Instructor 2001 to present

Berkeley Design Advocates Award, Halcyon Commons 1997

Professional Merit Award, Park Restoration, EBRPD 1994

Member of winning design team, Oakland City Hall Plaza Competition 1985

Research assistant, Dr. Albert Fein, Historic Landscape Preservation and Environmental History, Harvard University 1982

ASLA Certificate of Honor, University of California 1979

WORK EXPERIENCE

Presidio Trust, San Francisco, Historic Landscape Architect. Project Manager for individual building improvements / restorations, Presidio wide site furnishings, lighting, and signage. Member of NEPA and Section 106 Historic compliance review committee. 2000 to present.

EDAW, San Francisco, Senior Landscape Architect. Technical Manager for Los Vaqueros Watershed Recreation improvements. Construction improvement plans for 20,000 acre watershed, including pedestrian and multi use trails, trail bridges, and staging areas. Project manager for Union Point Park, Oakland, masterplan. 1998 to 2000

East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland. Project Manager on stream restoration and park renovation for historic landmark, Alvarado Park, Richmond. Project manager for new facilities including fishing pier, railroad crossing and recreation improvements at Eckley historic town site, Carquinez Straits. 1987 to 1998

Michael Lamb Design Studio, Berkeley. Design and construction supervision of residential gardens including one to five acre estates. 1985 to present.

POD Inc., San Francisco (Now Sasaki Associates). Design development of 2,000 acre low density housing and golf course in Fairfield. 1987

TAC, The Architect Collaborative, San Francisco. Design development for the Limited's corporate headquarters, Columbus, Ohio. 1986 to 1987

Robert LaRocca and Associates, San Francisco. Project manager for Triton Museum of Art, Santa Clara, Triad System Headquarters, Livermore, mid and high-rise projects in Pleasant Hill and San Francisco with RMW and Gensler 1984 to 1986

Gallagher Construction and Development, Osterville Massachusetts. Site development and construction supervision for two acre mixed use project on Cape Cod. 1982 to 1983

Mason and Frey, Belmont Massachusetts. Working drawings for linear park for MBTA. Project manager for athletic fields in Hopkinton and pocket park development at Harvard School of Medicine. 1981 to 1982

VISTA, Design and Planning Assistance Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Small parks and playgrounds, including a recreational lake and support facilities. 1979 to 1980

PROFESSIONAL AFILIATIONS Co-founder, past President, current Treasurer, DOCOMOMO US Northern California Chapter Board Member and Chair, Education Committee, San Francisco Architectural Heritage, California Preservation Foundation Member, 2012 Annual Conference Program Committee. PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Tour Leader, “Golden Gateway and Levi’s Plaza” What’s Out There Weekend, The Cultural Landscape Foundation, September 2011 Speaker, California Preservation Foundation Conference, “LEED for Neighborhood Design and the Presidio’s Public Health Service Hospital”, May 2011 Speaker, California APA Annual Conference, “What’s Old is Green: The Presidio and LEED”, November 2010. Speaker, Society for American City and Regional Planning History (SACRPH) Conference, “ The Golden Gateway Redevelopment Project and its role in Modern San Francisco”, October 2009. Speaker, SPUR Lunchtime Lecture Series, “Sustainability at the Presidio”, October 2009. Speaker, SF Heritage Summer/Fall Lecture Series, “Modernism Inside and Out: Integrating Architecture and Landscape Design”, August 2009.

Chandler W. McCoy AIA, LEED AP Chandler McCoy has more than 22 years of experience in the field of historic preservation, working in the public sector as a historic architect and planner. At the PresidioTrust in San Francisco for 12 years, he is currently the Associate Director for Planning and Design. He focuses on preservation planning and the rehabilitation of National Historic Landmark buildings and sites. He is active in San Francisco’s preservation community as a board member of San Francisco Heritage and the Northern California Chapter of Docomomo-US. He lectures frequently on the topics of sustainability in historic projects and on modern architecture and landscape in the Bay Area. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Presidio Trust, San Francisco, California. Associate Director, Planning & Design, 1999 - present. National Park Service, Presidio Project Office, Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Historical Architect, 1995 –January 1999. Polshek and Partners, New York, New York Architect, 1994 - 1995 National Park Service, Building Conservation Branch, North Atlantic Regional Office, New York, New York Historical Architect , 1990 - 1994 National Park Service, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico Historical Architect, 1989 - 1990 Archipelago Design, New York, New York Architect, 1988 and August 1984 - 1986 Warner, Burns, Toan and Lunde Architects, New York, NY Designer, 1986 - 1988 EDUCATION ICCROM, International Centre for the Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, Rome Italy Certificate Holder, Architectural Conservation Program,1992 Columbia University, Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation Master of Architecture, 1985 University of Virginia B. S. in Architecture, 1982

Author, “The Case for Preservation of Parkmerced”, San Francisco Heritage Newsletter, Volume XXXVI, No. 1, Winter 2008. Tour Leader, AIA Architecture and the City Festival, “The Mid-Century City: Modernism on Cathedral Hill, September 2009. Tour Leader, Northern California Chapter of Docomomo Annual Tour Day, Greenwood Common in Berkeley, CA, October 2008. Tour Leader, AIA SF Architecture and the City Festival “Exploring Mid-Century Downtown San Francisco” September 2008. Author, “Losing Parkmerced”, Docomomo-US Newsletter, Winter 2007. Speaker, AIA SF summer lecture series, “Planning for the Main Post at the Presidio”, August 2007. Tour Leader, Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation Annual Conference “Exploring Modernism in San Francisco” September 2006. Speaker, California Preservation Foundation Conference, “What Makes It Modern? Rehabilitation and Upgrading Modern Structures” April 2005. Speaker, California Preservaton Foundation Conference, “Forgotten Modern Masters: Lesser-Known Bay Area Architects”, April 2004. Tour Leader, California Preservation Foundation Conference, “Modern Urban Landscapes in San Francisco” April 2004. Author, “Demolition of a Modernist Building: The Red Cross Building by Gardner Dailey” SF Architectural Heritage Newsletter Spring1999.

SELECTED BUILDING PROJECTS Fort Scott, Building 1201- Rehabilitation of a 1909 military headquarters building. Construction budget: $3 million. (ongoing) Fort Scott, Buildings 1202 and 1204 – Design management for two 1912 Army barracks converted to a training, conference, and housing facility (ongoing). Public Health Service Hospital District Site Improvements: Upgrade of a historic 30-acre hospital campus with new landscape, site lighting, signage, trails, parking and roadway realignment. Construction budget: $2million. Presidio Transit Center: New construction in the Main Post historic district to provide public transit facilities and a restaurant. Site improvements including landscape, lighting, parking and sidewalks. Construction budget $1.5 million Presidio Post Office and Bank: Rehabilitation of 1898 Army Guardhouse to serve new tenants, including restoration of the historic porch and landscape. Construction budget: $1million. Presidio Fire Station: Rehabilitation of and addition to historic Army fire station to upgrade and expand the facility to meet current fire department needs and seismic standards. Construction Budget: $2million. SELECTED PLANNING DOCUMENTS Main Post Cultural Landscape Report-CLR for the Main Post, the Presidio’s oldest district. West of Main Parade Focused Cultural Landscape Report- a focused study looking at a small part of the Main Post. Main Post Planning and Design Guidelines- guidelines to direct building rehabilitation and new construction at the Presidio’s Main Post.. Planning Guidelines for West Crissy Field- guidelines and other historic material included in an RFP offering the former airplane hangars at Crissy airfield. Doyle Drive Parkway Architectural Criteria- guidelines written for the highway designers of the new highway facility and adjacent Presidio landscape. Letterman District Planning and Design Guidelines- guidelines directing new construction at a 23-acre site in the former Letterman Hospital complex.

Michelle Taylor

mtaylor@presidiotrust.gov

Education Columbia University, New York, New York Masters of Science, Historic Preservation, May 2012 University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California Bachelor of Arts, History, 2002 Professional Experience Presidio Trust, San Francisco, California Historic Compliance Coordinator, December, 2012-Present

• Conduct archival research and documentation for Section 106 compliance review and consultation, cultural landscape studies, building condition assessments, and NR nominations. Prepare key reference and administrative documents such as Physical History Reports (PHR) and DPR 523 forms.

• Oversee and direct project coordination of preservation interns. • Provide interdepartmental coordination to evaluate the level of compliance required for

maintenance/operations projects throughout Presidio Trust. Prepare and/or provide compliance support of Preservation Maintenance Plans (PMP) for single-occupant, long-term tenancies of historic buildings.

• Perform project support, coordination and analysis for large scale inter-agency projects including, large-scale Section 106 projects, the 2008 NHL Update, and the renewal of the Presidio Trust Programmatic Agreement.

• Assist with project oversight of CalTrans and Public Private Partnership cultural resource documentation, monitoring and protection of contributing resources associated with the construction of the Presidio Parkway, a large-scale infrastructure project.

Presidio Trust, San Francisco, California Intern: Historic Preservation Compliance, June-November 2012

• Updated a Historic Structures Report for the Presidio of San Francisco’s former Officers’ Club, State and National Registered Landmark. Edited, compiled and organized recent structural, technical, and historic findings uncovered during rehabilitation.

• Completed a conditions assessment survey of all bronze monuments and objects within nearly 1500 acres of park land.

Seri Worden, Historic Preservation Consultant, New York, New York Intern: Historic and Architectural Research Assistant, May-June 2011

• Researched and prepared findings for a National Register Nomination of the Manhattan’s West End Presbyterian Church and Parish House located.

M. Taylor Historical Consulting, San Francisco, California Sole Proprietor/Architectural Historian, 2007-2010

• Researched and analyzed potential historical architectural and cultural resources for property owners and developers within the Bay Area.

• Performed archival investigations and project site visits necessary for the completion of Historical Resource Evaluations as per local planning codes and CEQA.

• Prepared Certificates of Appropriateness Applications for local, state and national landmarks; presented conclusions and findings to the local Landmarks Preservation Board.

Michelle Taylor mtaylor@presidiotrust.gov

SIA Consulting Corporation, San Francisco, California Architectural and Structural Engineering Firm Project Coordinator/Staff Historian, 2005- 2010

• Researched, compiled and authored a range of reports and applications including Historic Resource Evaluations, Environmental Impact Reports, Variance Applications, Conditional Use Applications, Certificate of Appropriateness Applications, etc. for various projects, particularly potential and confirmed historic resources within the Bay Area.

• Managed planning and submittal process for City Building and Planning Department applications and required documents for the approval of proposed alterations, demolitions and construction of properties throughout the Bay Area. Responsibilities included the preparation, verification and review of compliance documents, planning codes and the coordination of plan reviews with local fire, planning and building departments. Acted as liaison between Architect, Client and City Planners for historical, architectural or structural engineering projects.

• Presented architectural and historical findings to boards, committees, clients, and municipal representatives in a concise, thorough and professional manner.

• Assisted developer and property owner SST Investments (a subsidiary of SIA Consulting) with rehabilitation projects of residential and commercial properties in the Bay Area. Tasks included liaison for subcontractors, potential tenants, general contractor and project manager. Tracked project development from plan development through construction and completion.

Other Relevant Experience DOCOMOMO_US: New York/Tri-State Chapter Volunteer: Research Assistant for Mid-town Manhattan survey, October 2011-2012 Cloisters Museum and Gardens, Metropolitan Museum of New York Volunteer: Research Assistant/Drafter, June 2011-May 2012 San Francisco Architectural Heritage Volunteer: Docent, 2007-2010 Skills

• Extensive knowledge and experience with preservation guidelines and legislation including CEQA and NHPA

• Design software program profeciency with Adobe Creative Suite, AutoCAD (Autodesk) and GIS (Arc GIS)

Awards

• Recipient of the 2011 Dorothy Miner Memorial Travel Fellowship for graduate thesis research • Recipient of 2011 Kinne Grant for graduate thesis research

Published Works

• A Commuter’s Cathedral: An Analysis of Pier Luigi Nervi’s George Washington Bridge Bus Station; Master’s Thesis, (May 2012)

• “Engineering Form: Nervi in New York” DOCOMOMO_US: New York/Tri-State News, No. 1, 2012. • “Luigi Nervi George Washington Bridge Bus Station” DOCOMOMO_US, November 2011-E NEWS

Brief (2011) • Orange County Government Center, Goshen NY: DOCOMOMO_US Register Building Fiche (2011)

2 7 2 0 B R Y A N T S T R E E T • S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A L I F O R N I A • 9 4 1 1 0 P H O N E 4 1 5 - 9 0 2 - 7 5 4 6 • E - M A I L R G T 2 1 0 2 @ G M A I L . C O M

R O B E R T G A R L A N D T H O M S O N

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

2006-Pres The Presidio Trust San Francisco, CA Historic Compliance Coordinator, Senior Preservation Specialist, Deputy Federal Preservation Officer Responsible for managing NHPA compliance program for all preservation and planning projects at the

Presidio of San Francisco National Historic Landmark District, a component of the GGNRA. Provide in-field consultation and project assistance on building rehabilitation projects, Federal tax

incentive reviews, NR evaluations, Section 106 compliance review & consultation, cultural landscape studies and building conditions assessments for the 400+ structure NHLD.

2005-2006 Getty Conservation Institute Los Angeles, CA Post-Graduate Intern, Education Department Selected to participate in a one-year, post-graduate internship program. Co-managed design, implementation of internal evaluation initiative to monitor GCI’s training courses. Assisted in development of mid-career training program for preservation professionals in Southeast

Asia, with research and project planning fieldwork at Angkor Wat Archaeological Park, Cambodia. Organized and delivered paper for the First Annual Getty Graduate Intern Symposium, March 2006.

2004 San Francisco Dept. of City Planning San Francisco, CA Summer Intern Participated in city initiative to survey, document and research historic buildings in the Mission district

of San Francisco. Attended staff and Preservation Advisory Board meetings, conducted research using city and departmental resources, contributed to in-field survey and documentation of buildings.

1996-1999 Archaeological Field Projects Various Sites Field Supervisor, Field School Instructor, Research Assistant Participated in preliminary excavations conducted at Emeryville Shellmound site as part of a crew

working for Oakland-based CRM company (ArcheoTec). Field supervisor for a two-month project to survey, excavate, document ruins of Swahili trading center

on Pemba, Tanzania, East Africa; responsibilities included crew management, field lab work, large-scale STP survey execution.

Instructed 15 adults in excavation and documentation of slave quarters site at Thomas Jefferson’s Poplar Forest historic home in Forest, Virginia as member of summer field school staff; conducted seminars in survey techniques, lab work assistance.

Independent study project focusing on a comprehensive archaeological survey of Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello house site in Charlottesville, Virginia, including work with surveying equipment, artifact assemblage analysis, primary documentation research, database management.

Conducted archaeological survey, including mapping, artifact analysis, lab work, and documentation research on an 18th century colonial house known as the Dickenson Site, located in Virginia's Piedmont region.

RTHOMSON 1

RTHOMSON 2

EDUCATION

2005 Columbia University New York, NY M.S. Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning concentration Founding student editor of Future Anterior, Columbia’s journal for preservation theory and criticism. Elected to the Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation Program Council. Research assistant for “Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation” by John Stubbs,

published in January 2009. Participated in and helped organize the “Mostar 2004” international workshop, focused on the

restoration of historic structures in post-conflict environment in Mostar, Bosnia & Herzegovina. Thesis title: “Modeling Mostar: Evaluating the Mostar 2004 Program in the Context of Present & Future

Trends in Historic Preservation Education”.

1997 University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA B.A. Archaeology Madison House Volunteer Center Program Director, leading two student trips to Casa Grande, AZ. Selected to the Jefferson Literary and Debating Society, the oldest debating club at UVA. Honors thesis title: “Archaeological Field Survey Techniques and Practice at Monticello”.

AWARDS Awarded Questers Scholarship, a two-year, merit-based grant given yearly to one Columbia student. 2004 Samuel H. Kress Foundation fellowship recipient for research in Mostar, Bosnia & Herzegovina. Awarded 2005 William Kinne Fellows Memorial Prize for post-graduate study in India and Sri Lanka. Recipient of 2004 Kinne Grant for study of historic architectural sites in China and Japan. Dean’s List & University of Virginia Anthropology Department Distinguished Majors Program. Awarded California Preservation Foundation Student Grant to attend 2005 conference in Riverside, CA.

PUBLICATIONS “Authenticity and the Post-Conflict Reconstruction of Historic Sites.” CRM: The Journal of Heritage

Stewardship 5.1 (Winter 2008). “On-Site Conservation Training in Cambodia: A Critical Survey of Activities at Angkor.” Built

Environment 33.3 (2007). “Looking East: What will the West learn from historic preservation tactics in Asia’s rapidly growing

cities?” The Next American City 12 (Fall 2006). “Preservation in Search of the Historic.” Future Anterior 1.2 (Winter 2005). “Taking Steps Toward a New Dialogue.” Future Anterior 1.1 (Spring 2004).

LECTURES & ADDITIONAL TRAINING Regular guest lecturer in UC Berkeley, Dept. of City and Regional Planning course “Intro to HP in CA”;

Guest lecturer in UC Davis landscape architecture department, Columbia University GSAPP program. Selected to present paper at the 2006 Historic Preservation Forum, Goucher College, Baltimore, MD. Completed undergraduate coursework in architectural drafting (2003); Professional work completed in

Photoshop, AutoCad 2002, GIS mapping programs. Completed CA Preservation Foundation workshops: Historic Building Surveys (2006) and CEQA (2005). Completed Advisory Council on Historic Preservation “Section 106 Essentials” and “Advanced Section

106 Seminar” training courses (2006, 2008). Program Committee Chair for the US/ICOMOS 10th International Symposium (2006-07); Program

Committee member for the CA Preservation Foundation annual conference (2010, 2011).

103 Montgomery Street, The Presidio San Francisco, California 94129 p. 415-561-5351 e. cwallace@presidiotrust.gov f. 415-561-2790

C H R I S T I N A L. W A L L A C E

SENIOR ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATOR

EDUCATION ICOMOS/ICCROM INTERNATIONAL COURSE ON WOOD CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY 1990

The Norwegian Institute of Technology Trondheim, Norway

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION, CONSERVATION SECTOR 1987

Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation Columbia University in the City of New York New York, New York

BACHELOR OF ARTS IN ARCHITECTURE, cum laude 1985 Minor: Architectural History

College of Architecture and Urban Planning University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

ARCHITECTURE IN ROME 1981 University of Washington, Seattle, Washington Six-month foreign study program in Rome, Italy

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY THE PRESIDIO TRUST (San Francisco, CA) 7/2006 to present

Preservation Project Manager providing technical preservation direction to PresidioTrust projects, in-house construction staff, tenants and architects on tax incentive, architectural conservation and preservation projects. Selected projects: Rehabilitation of Building 50- The Officers’ Club, Planet Granite (Bldg. 924), La Petit Baleen (Bldg. 933), Archaeology Lab (Bldgs. 44 to 49), Stewardship & Sustainability Center, Walt Disney Family Foundation Museum (Bldg. 104) and Fort Scott Stabilization.

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP (San Francisco, CA) 10/03 to 6/06

Senior Architectural Conservator employed with architecture and conservation firm specializing in historic preservation. Selected projects: Jefferson County Courthouse, Pasadena City Hall, Contemporary Jewish Museum.

CHRISTINA L. WALLACE, ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATOR Private practice- 6/99 to 7/06

Selected projects: San Francisco City Hall, Conservatory of Flowers in Golden Gate Park, Ford Assembly Plant, San Francisco Unified School District, Baker Hamilton Building, 1625 Clay Street, Oakland, CA.

Christina L. Wallace ~resumé~

2

TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (San Francisco, CA) 3/95 to 6/99

Superintendent on large scale rehabilitation projects. Selected projects: Hearst Memorial Mining Building, Berkeley, CA, Seismic Upgrade and Earthquake Damage Repair of San Francisco City Hall.

CAREY & COMPANY, INC., ARCHITECTS (San Francisco, CA) 1/92 to 3/95

Selected projects: San Francisco City Hall, War Memorial Opera House, Spreckels Temple of Music, Dunsmuir House, Oakland City Hall, Mills Hall at Mills College, Santa Clara County Courthouse and the Palace of Fine Arts.

JAN HIRD POKORNY ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS (New York, NY) 2/89 to 1/92

Selected projects: Titanic Memorial Lighthouse, Old Merchant’s House, Erie-Lackawanna Ferry and Rail Terminal, The Century Club, Sailors’ Snug Harbor, The Morris-Jumel Mansion and the Church of the Incarnation.

CENTRAL PARK CONSERVANCY (Central Park, New York, NY) 12/87 to 2/89

Architectural Conservator responsible for restoration of the ornate sandstone and cast iron bridges in Central Park. CENTER FOR PRESERVATION RESEARCH (Columbia University, New York, NY) 6/86 to 9/86

Internship: Trinity Church Restoration Project on Wall Street. Survey of highly deteriorated conditions on 1870’s sandstone church.

HONORS, AFFILIATIONS, ACCREDITATIONS USGBC LEED BD + C Accredited Professional 2007 Women Construction Owners and Executives USA, California Chapter Outstanding Women in Construction Award 1997 Turner Construction Company Staff Award for Outstanding Contribution on San Francisco City Hall Seismic Upgrade and Earthquake Damage Repair Project 1995

Undergraduate Honors, College of Architecture and Urban Planning University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 1982-1985 Member of Association for Preservation Technology International (APTI) Member of American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC)

Christina Wallace meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards in Conservation

Robert A. Wallace, Architect The Clocktower * 461 Second Street, #222 * San Francisco, CA * 94107 Telephone: 415 - 957 - 0441 * Email: presidiosf@comcast.net

SUMMARY * Registered Architect (NY) with 30 years professional experience in architectural planning and design, project/budget management, A/E management, design team supervision and construction administration. * Experience with a wide range of large and small-scale, public and private sector projects involving the rehabilitation, repair and preservation of historic buildings and sites and new construction in historic districts. (primarily in San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Seattle). * Expertise with technically complicated projects involving seismic strengthening, systems integration, ADA and code compliance, rehabilitation tax credits, LEED certification, and public or landmark review processes.

The Presidio Trust – Planning, Projects and Programs Associate Director of Design / Senior Project Manager

EXPERIENCE Presidio of San Francisco, California. Jan 1999 to present A National Park and National Historic Landmark District. www.presidio.gov SELECTED RECENT PROJECTS Montgomery Street Barracks – Buildings 101 and 103, Presidio. Rehabilitation and conversion of two 1895 barracks to multi-tenant office use. Design manager for Trust developed project and responsible for A/E team selection and project design management, review and construction coordination for two adjacent 42,000 sf historic structures. Successful $24M project and recipient of 2012 California Preservation Foundation design award for historic rehabilitation and use of performance engineering and innovative fiber technology for seismic strengthening. Pending LEED Gold certification. Pershing Hall - The Inn at the Presidio, Presidio. Rehabilitation and conversion of 1903 Bachelor Officers’ Quarters to guest lodging. Design manager for Trust developed project and responsible for A/E/Interiors team selection and project design management, review and construction coordination for 22 room inn for park visitors. Resolved complicated access and egress requirements and seismic, acoustic and new building systems challenges. LEED Gold certification. www.innatthepresidio.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igybyLgmndo Residential Neighborhoods Rehabilitation, Presidio. Rehabilitation of over 65 historic Officers’ houses(1866-1932) in various neighborhoods. (Wyman Ave., Pilots Row, Kobbe Ave., Funston Ave., Storey Ave., Infantry Terrace) Design manager responsible for all A/E selection, design project management and review for Trust’s residential leasing program. Involving complete residential rehabilitation: structural, plumbing and electrical, telecom, kitchens and baths, exterior envelope, site and utilities infrastructure. Andy Goldsworthy “Spire” Art Installation, Inspiration Point, Presidio. Large scale commissioned art installation. Served as Trust technical liaison with artist and engineers to facilitate the complex installation, engineering, design review and permitting process and

long-term maintenance agreement. Acted as the Trust’s field representative during foundation construction and spire installation. Bay School Rehabilitation - Building 35, Presidio. Rehabilitation of 1915 barracks and conversion to independent high school. Owner’s representative from inception through construction for the $17M tenant rehabilitation of a large historic barracks and conversion to 400 student independent high school. Recipient of California AIA Design Award.

National Park Service - Presidio Project Office Project Manager / Historic Architect Mar 1992 to Jan 1999 Presidio of San Francisco, California. A National Park and National Historic Landmark District SELECTED PROJECTS Thoreau Center for Sustainability, Presidio of San Francisco. Rehabilitation and conversion of historic hospital complex into new offices. NPS project manager responsible for all design review, approvals and coordination with developer, tenant and tenant design team for the complete rehabilitation of 12 adjacent historic structures in compliance with the criteria for green building design and for the Rehabilitation Tax Credits for historic preservation. National Trust for Historic Preservation Award recipient. Rehabilitation of Building 135, Golden Gate Club, Presidio of San Francisco. Conversion of historic social hall into meeting facility. Project manager of the A/E consultants contract for all design and documentation efforts required for the rehabilitation of a 24,000 sf enlisted men’s club and convert to a new public assembly, reception and conferencing facility with catering kitchen. Presidio Rehabilitation Guidelines, Presidio of San Francisco. Published document to guide the tenant rehabilitation of Presidio buildings. Managed combined efforts of NPS staff and A/E consultants in the research, writing and production of Rehabilitating Buildings at the Presidio of San Francisco. Recipient of California Preservation Foundation Design Award. Guided formulation of agency position on applicable building code guidelines, policies and permit review procedures for future NPS and tenant initiated rehabilitation projects at the Presidio. Building Condition Assessment program, Presidio of San Francisco. Presidio building condition assessment database and tenant guidelines. Managed large A/E contract to survey and document the condition of over 200 individual and prototypical Presidio structures to create database and building condition reports to aid prospective tenants and the NPS leasing effort.

Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer Associates, Architects and Planners Project Architect / Project Manager Aug 1989 to Dec 1991 New York, New York.

SELECTED PROJECTS

Hawaii Theatre, Honolulu, Hawaii. Rehabilitation, Addition and Restoration of historic 1400 seat theatre. Project Architect for building design and integration of complex new systems in

historic theater structure. Coordinated work of specialized theatrical consultants. Led production team on construction documents for theater rehabilitation and restoration phase.

Bryant Park Restaurant and Kiosks, New York, New York. New restaurant pavilions in restored Midtown park.

Project Architect for new construction of 5,250 SF restaurant pavilion structure and park kiosks as part of Bryant Park Restoration Plan. Assumed full project responsibility at construction documentation phase.

The Plaza Hotel, New York, New York. Proposed alterations and addition to major landmark hotel facing Central Park.

Project Architect for exterior restoration and rehabilitation program including a 20,000 SF penthouse addition. Prepared and presented numerous well received design proposals to client and landmark regulatory organizations.

New York Botanical Gardens, Bronx, New York. Temporary site improvements with architectural and graphic elements. Designer and overall coordinator of the collection of seasonal structures,

graphic elements and an outdoor cafe as part of a comprehensive Garden improvement plan. Managed all aspects of project and helped present proposals to the NYBG executive director and Board members.

Beyer Blinder Belle, Architects and Planners Project Architect / Project Manager Sept 1985 to Aug 1989 New York, New York. SELECTED PROJECTS Merchandise Mart Renovation, Chicago, Illinois. New 250,000 SF retail center and entrance and lobby restoration in landmark building. Represented office with Partner and was instrumental in selection of firm, was

design team leader from initial proposal through design development, made design presentations to developer and owner, participated in project budget analysis and coordinated work of Associate Architects.

Strawberry Square, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Complex renovation of historic block to create new mixed use enclosed arcade. Assumed project at schematic design phase, made all presentations to client and

State historic agencies, led design and production team, coordinated all consultants work, produced design guidelines manual and remained primary representative during construction. A Rehabilitation Tax Credit project.

Brooklyn Army Terminal, Brooklyn, New York. Rehabilitation and conversion of 2 million SF historic army warehouse facility to new office and light industrial center. Acted as lead project Architect during entire first phase from Master Planning

through construction documents, coordinated all consultants work and served as construction administrator. Drafted fee proposal, participated in contract negotiations for second phase. Assumed full project manager responsibilities including all consultant contract negotiations, budget and staffing projections contract administration and presentations to public and municipal organizations.

New York State Preservation Award recipient. Wyatt Stapper Architects Project Architect Aug 1983 to July 1985 Seattle, Washington.

Ibsen Nelsen & Associates Architectural Intern / Designer Apr 1978 to Sept 1981 Seattle, Washington.

EDUCATION Master of Architecture, 1983

University of Washington, Seattle. Medal of Honor for Outstanding Master’s Thesis. A.I.A. Certificate of Merit for academic scholarship. Graduate Teaching Assistant Member Tau Sigma Delta honorary fraternity.

Architecture in Rome Scholarship, 1981 6 Month Graduate Foreign Study Program in Rome and Civita di Bagnoregio, Italy.

Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Design, 1977 University of Washington, Seattle

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B

PRESIDIO TRUST PROJECT SCREENING FORM

Presidio Trust Project Screening Form – November 2007 Page 1

Filing of Project Screening form is in compliance with Section 1010.1(a) of the Presidio Trust’s Regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Section VIII of the Programmatic Agreement among the Presidio Trust, National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the California State Historic Preservation Officer regarding the Presidio Trust Management Plan and various operation and maintenance activities for Area “B” of the Presidio of San Francisco, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as Amended.

(To be completed by N2 Division only)

Submittal Date Project No. NHPA / NEPA PART I A. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Title: Project Location / Site: Planning Area: Major / Minor Work Order Proposed Start Proposed Completion Project Manager / Title Trust Department Phone Number Fax Number

B. PURPOSE AND NEED Describe below the reason for proposing the project at this time and what the project hopes to accomplish.

C. WORK PLAN SPECIFICS Describe below how the project would be implemented. Be as specific as possible about dates and methods. The form must include a project location map and the following attachments as needed: site plans, design and/or construction drawings, photographs, cut sheets, other graphics.

D. PROJECT COORDINATION If implemented, would the project: 1. Require a Building Permit and/or an Excavation Clearance?

2. Require outside review/consultation? e.g. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), or Native American tribes.

3. Be within Area A or have the potential to affect Area A lands, and require National Park Service NEPA or 5X Review?

4. Disturb soil in the drip line of a building? If so, has the remediation program for lead-based paint soil been initiated?

5.

Would this project generate controversy or questions from the public, and hence require public outreach and education? Does it require notice in the Presidio Post? if “Yes”, explain here:

6. Be within an environmental land use control zone? If unknown, consult the Environmental Protection Specialist at 561-2756

PRESIDIO TRUST PROJECT SCREENING FORM

If implemented, would the project: 7. Have design components (such as aesthetic/visual features, architectural/interior

design elements, designed landscape components or special maintenance/sustainability considerations) that do not give rise to potential environmental effects, but may require additional review? If unknown, consult the Design Review Committee Coordinator at 561-5367

E. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Describe below all alternatives considered including timing, cost, potential environmental effects, and/or logistical issues that influenced the rejection of each alternative. “No Action” should always be one alternative considered. Proposals that do not document alternatives considered will be returned to the Project Manager for further information

F. CONSULTATION Early consultation with the N2 and resource staff will expedite the review process. Describe below communication with Trust resource specialists or input from outside agencies or experts. Any potential environmental impacts identified must be discussed with the relevant staff specialist.

PART II “Yes” answers must be accompanied by an explanation of how the potential impact will be avoided. Justify “No” answers with an explanation when needed. If implemented, could the project:

1. Affect a known historic property, an archeologically sensitive area, cultural landscape or other National Historic Landmark District contributing feature? ............ If unknown, consult the Historic Compliance Coordinator

Explain:

2. Destroy, remove or replace historic fabric? ..................................................................

Explain:

3. Introduce, reintroduce or remove non-historic elements (physical, visible, audible,

and atmospheric) of a historic structure or environment? ............................................. Explain:

4. Cause deterioration of historic fabric, terrain or setting? ..............................................

Explain:

5. Substantially alter any ground cover or vegetation and/or diminish habitat? Affect

an endangered, rare or threatened species? ...................................................................

PRESIDIO TRUST PROJECT SCREENING FORM

Explain:

17. Substantially increase the amount of energy or water used? Use sustainable materials

and/or appliances designated in the Presidio Green Building Guidelines? ................... Explain:

18. Substantially increase the amount of waste generated? ................................................

Explain:

19. Increase light or glare? ..................................................................................................

Explain:

20. Block an existing view, be visually intrusive or contribute to a degraded visual

condition? ...................................................................................................................... Explain:

21. Maintain or create a public or employee safety or health hazard? ................................

Explain:

22. Create or contribute to a fire hazard or increase the demands for fire department

services? Increase demand for police services or create an attractive nuisance? .......... Explain:

Comments, Questions and Suggestions:

Did you find this new format user-friendly? ......................................................... Yes No Why?

PRESIDIO TRUST PROJECT SCREENING FORM

Explain:

6. Attract animal or insect pests? ......................................................................................

Explain:

7. Inhibit surface water drainage, alter the landscape topography, lead to increased

runoff or erosion or compromise slope stability? ......................................................... Explain:

8. Involve handling and/or storage of hazardous substances? ..........................................

Explain:

9. Degrade surface or ground water quality? Substantially alter the type of wastewater

generated to the sanitary sewer system or storm drainage? .......................................... Explain:

10. Affect wetland, riparian or coastal habitat? ..................................................................

Explain:

11. Be inconsistent with existing or formally proposed land use plans or policies (i.e. the

Presidio Trust Management Plan and Mitigation Monitoring Enforcement Program, Vegetation Management Plan etc.)? ............................................................................ If unknown, consult the Environmental Protection Specialist

Explain:

12. Impact current or planned visitor services? Alter current visitor access (parking,

trails, roads, etc.)? ......................................................................................................... Explain:

13. Greatly increase the demand for parking? ....................................................................

Explain:

14. Substantially increase traffic congestion, traffic volume, or adversely affect traffic

safety for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists? ............................................................. Explain:

15. Substantially increase vehicle emissions or emissions of other air pollutants?

Generate nuisance dust or odors? ................................................................................. Explain:

16. Perceptibly increase the background noise levels or expose people to loud noise? .....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C

2The Presidio Trust N Process

Undertaking

Trust Project Manager supplies DFPO with Project Summary

for NEPA & NHPA (N2) Review

DFPO Determines Level of Project Review

Historic Property Affected, No Adverse Effect

Project documented in Administrative

Record

Historic Property Affected, No Adverse Effect with Conditions

N2 Committee Review Meeting

Public and Signatory Party

Notification, Review, and Comments

DFPO Issues CoC and CE with Project Conditions.

Historic Property Affected, Adverse Effect

DFPO consults with SHPO and NPS to resolve Adverse Effect, Execute MOA

DFPO consults with SHPO and NPS, Fails to Resolve Adverse Effect, Notifies ACHP. May Initiate Consultation 36 C.F.R. § 800.6.

Adverse Effect Resolved through consultation, agreement document executed.

All Findings are documented in the Presidio Trust Annual Report in Accordance with Stipulation XIII

Appendix D

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

AMONG THE PRESIDIO TRUST,

THE CALIFORNIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, AND

THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION, FOR

THE MAIN POST UPDATE TO THE PRESIDIO TRUST MANAGEMENT PLAN PRESIDIO OF SAN FRANCISCO NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK,

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the Presidio Trust (Trust) proposes to amend the planning concept for the Main Post District: Visitor and Community Center section with the Main Post Update to the Presidio Trust Management Plan (PTMP) for Area B of the Presidio of San Francisco (Project), a designated National Historic Landmark District (NHLD) within the boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA); and WHEREAS, the Trust plans to enact this Project pursuant to the Presidio Trust Act, 16 U.S.C. 460bb appendix, thereby making the Undertaking subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. § 470f, and its implementing regulations, 36 CFR Part 800, and Stipulation X of the Programmatic Agreement Among the Presidio Trust, National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the California State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding the Presidio Trust Implementation Plan and Various Operation and Maintenance Activities for Area “B” of the Presidio of San Francisco, Golden Gate National Recreation Area (“Presidio Trust Programmatic Agreement” (PTPA)), as amended; and WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration, California Department of Transportation and San Francisco County Transportation Authority have accounted for adverse effects to the Presidio NHLD located within the Main Post in a separate Section 106 consultation on the replacement of Doyle Drive, completed in 2008; and WHEREAS, the Trust completed a Section 106 consultation on the Main Parade Rehabilitation in November 2007, resulting in a conceptual design included for reference in this PA as Appendix H, and major elements including pavement removal and turf installation are proceeding; and

WHEREAS the Trust initiated consultation under Stipulation X of the PTPA, as amended, and in concert with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) elected to combine consultation with Subpart B of 36 CFR Part 800; and WHEREAS, the Trust has defined the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for this Undertaking as the NHLD, depicted on the map in Appendix A; and WHEREAS, the Trust has determined that the Undertaking will adversely affect the NHLD, and has consulted with the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800 and Stipulation IX(A) of the PTPA; and WHEREAS, the Trust has completed a draft update to the Presidio of San Francisco National Historic Landmark forms in 2008 and has submitted the update to the National Park Service’s Pacific West Regional Office (PWRO); individual eligibility determination of post-World War II resources is still

1 Programmatic Agreement for the Main Post Update, October 21, 2010

ongoing; and regardless of eligibility or contributing status of those resources the Trust does not propose to change the Main Post Update to the PTMP projects associated with those resources; and

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

100

WHEREAS, the Trust has consulted with the National Park Service’s PWRO and the GGNRA regarding the effects of the undertaking on historic properties and has invited them to sign this Programmatic Agreement (Agreement) as an invited signatory; and WHEREAS, in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.6(a)(1) and Stipulation X of the PTPA, the Trust has notified the ACHP of its adverse effect determination providing the specified documentation, and the ACHP has chosen to participate in the consultation pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6(a)(1)(iii); and WHEREAS, pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.2 (c)(5) the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Presidio Historical Association, San Francisco Architectural Heritage, Descendents of the de Anza and Portola Expedition, Sierra Club, National Parks Conservation Association, Barbara Voss (archaeologist), People for a Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Cow Hollow Association, Neighborhood Association for Planning at the Presidio, Laurel Heights Improvement Association, Marina Community Association, San Francisco Film Society, Interfaith Center at the Presidio, Contemporary Art Museum at the Presidio, and Larkspur Hotels and Restaurants have participated in the consultation, and have been invited to be concurring parties to this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Trust consulted with representatives of Native American groups identified by the California Native American Heritage Commission as having knowledge of cultural resources in the project area and San Francisco County, and has incorporated comments from that consultation into this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Trust documented the findings of effect in a document called Finding of Effect for the Main Post Update (Appendix B), which was released in July 2009; and WHEREAS, the ACHP requested a report from the Director of the NPS under Section 213 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) [16 U.S.C. § 470u] detailing the significance of the NHLD, describing the effects of the Undertaking on the NHLD, and recommending measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects, in August 2008; and WHEREAS, the National Park Service’s PWRO submitted its completed Section 213 report to the ACHP in April 2009 (available on the Trust website at http://www.presidio.gov/trust/projects/mp/mpdocs.htm) which concurred with the Trust’s finding of adverse effect, and informed the consultation; and WHEREAS, the Art Museum proposal included in the February 2009 MPU was withdrawn in July 2009; and WHEREAS, the Trust, through the consultation process and in compliance with the NHPA, including Sections 106 and 110(f), has modified the Undertaking to avoid, minimize or mitigate the adverse effects identified in the Finding of Effect for the Main Post Update, and described this modified Undertaking in a Final Main Post Update (August 2010); and WHEREAS, the Trust has proposed the removal or relocation of Buildings 40 and 41 as part of the El Presidio: The Birthplace of San Francisco project; and WHEREAS the Trust is conducting a parallel review process in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the development of a Supplemental Environmental Impact

2 Programmatic Agreement for the Main Post Update, October 21, 2010

Statement, which has included the solicitation of public input on the potential impacts of the Undertaking on historic properties; and

101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109

110

WHEREAS, all projects located in the Main Post that are not described in the following stipulations will be reviewed according to Stipulation VII of the Presidio Trust Programmatic Agreement (PTPA); and NOW, THEREFORE, the Trust, ACHP, SHPO, and NPS agree that the Undertaking will be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into account the effect of the Undertaking on historic properties.

3 Programmatic Agreement for the Main Post Update, October 21, 2010

CONTENTS 111 112

113

114

115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123

124

125

126 127 128 129

130

131 132

133

134 135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

I. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ............................................................................................................ 5

II. TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES .......................................................................................... 5 A. SUMMARY OF TREATMENT MEASURES AND LIMITS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION...................................... 5 B. DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN GUIDELINES & CULTURAL LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTATION ...................... 9 C. PROJECT DESIGN REVIEWS – NEW CONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION ......................................... 11 D. HABS/ HALS DOCUMENTATION ................................................................................................................ 11 E. HISTORIC STRUCTURES REPORTS .............................................................................................................. 12 F. SALVAGE ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 G. ARCHAEOLOGY PROCESS ............................................................................................................................ 12 H. ARCHAEOLOGY PROGRAM FOR EL PRESIDIO & THE MAIN POST ........................................................... 14 I. INDIVIDUAL ELIGIBILITY OF POST-WORLD WAR II RESOURCES ........................................................... 15

III. PTPA UPDATE ............................................................................................................................................ 15

IV. ADMINISTRATIVE STIPULATIONS ..................................................................................................... 15 A. REPORTING .................................................................................................................................................... 15 B. PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS ....................................................................................................................... 15 C. REPORT DISSEMINATION ............................................................................................................................. 15 D. POST REVIEW DISCOVERIES ........................................................................................................................ 15

V. DISPUTE RESOLUTION ........................................................................................................................... 16 A. RAISING & RESOLVING OBJECTIONS – SIGNATORY PARTIES ................................................................. 16 B. RAISING AND RESOLVING OBJECTIONS – CONCURRING PARTIES ......................................................... 17

VI. AMENDMENTS AND TERMINATION ................................................................................................... 17 A. AMENDMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 17 B. TERMINATION ............................................................................................................................................... 17

VII. DURATION .................................................................................................................................................. 17

VIII. CONCURRING PARTY INVOLVEMENT IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS AGREEMENT ..... 18

SIGNATORY PARTIES ..................................................................................................................................... 19-22

LIST OF APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................... 23

4 Programmatic Agreement for the Main Post Update, October 21, 2010

143 144 145 146 147 148

149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156

157 158 159 160

161 162 163 164

165

166

167

168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177

STIPULATIONS The Trust shall ensure that following measures are carried out:

I. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

A. The Presidio Trust, the SHPO, and the NPS will review and comment on draft designs submitted in accordance with Stipulation II(C) and draft and/or comment on documents submitted in accordance with Stipulation II(B), (D) and (E), may raise and resolve objections according to Stipulation V(A) and may amend or terminate this agreement according to Stipulation VI. The NPS, as an invited signatory, will have the same roles and responsibilities as the other signatory parties. The Trust will be responsible for organizing public meetings, distributing materials for review during the design development process, and reporting in accordance with Stipulations II(C) and IV(A).

B. The ACHP may raise objections according to Stipulation V(A) and resolve objections according to Stipulation V(B) and may amend or terminate this agreement according to Stipulation VI. The ACHP will not participate in design reviews described under Stipulation II(C).

C. Concurring parties may review and comment on draft designs and treatment plans submitted pursuant to Stipulation II(C) and may raise objections according to Stipulation V(B). Consulting parties that do not concur with the PA-MPU will have the same participation opportunities as the public.

D. The public may participate and comment in public meetings according to Stipulation II(C).

II. TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES

A. Summary of Treatment Measures and Limits of New Construction

For components of the Undertaking determined to result in adverse effects to historic properties and to the cultural landscape as documented in the final Finding of Effect for the Main Post Update (Appendix B), measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate the adverse effects of the Undertaking are described below. References below to the “Secretary’s Standards” refer to the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: Standards for Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration and Reconstruction (NPS, 1995 and updates); the Secretary’s Standards for Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (NPS, 1996 and updates); and/or the Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (NPS, 1983 and updates). It would not be uncommon for multiple standards to apply to a single component of the Undertaking.

5 Programmatic Agreement for the Main Post Update, October 21, 2010

1. Project-Specific Treatments 178

179

180

181 182 183 184 185

186 187

188

189 190 191

192 193 194

195 196

197 198 199

200

201 202

203 204 205

206 207 208 209 210 211

212 213 214

215

a. El Presidio: The Birthplace of San Francisco

The archaeological program at El Presidio may only proceed as follows:

i. Standards and guidelines to direct archaeological efforts at El Presidio will be developed and will apply to all work undertaken at the site, including work by professional and academic partners of the Trust; terms and details for these standards and guidelines to direct archaeological methods at El Presidio are set forth in Stipulation II(H).

ii. Treatment recommendations will be developed for the phased implementation of an interpretive landscape at El Presidio, including:

1. Reduction of parking from 252 daily stalls to 75 daily stalls, and;

2. Measures to periodically close Moraga Avenue, Mesa and Graham Streets using removable bollards for ongoing excavation and special events, and;

3. Representations of the dimensions and layout of the colonial settlement, and measures to rehabilitate the character-defining features of the plaza de armas.

Review of schematic designs for above will be conducted according to terms set forth in Stipulation II(C).

iii. Prior to implementing a course of action involving NHL-contributing Buildings 40 or 41 the Trust will consult with signatory and concurring parties according to terms set forth in Stipulation II(C)(2).

b. Archaeology Lab and Curation Facilities

Rehabilitation, new construction, and demolition associated with the Archaeology Lab and Curation Facility may only proceed as follows:

i. NHL-contributing Building 46 will be demolished. Prior to demolition, Building 46 will be fully documented according to the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) according to terms set forth in Stipulation II(D).

ii. A connecting structure not to exceed 500 square feet (sq/ft) will be constructed between Buildings 47 and 48, with a height not to exceed the roof ridge of Buildings 47 and 48; new construction will follow conceptual plans attached as Appendix C; review of rehabilitation and new construction for Buildings 47, 48, and the new connector will be conducted according to terms set forth in Stipulation II(C), and will follow conceptual plans attached as Appendix C.

iii. The Trust and NPS-GGNRA will cooperatively draft an agreement on the management of archaeological collections recovered from the Presidio NHLD within six (6) months of executing this agreement.

c. Presidio Lodge

6 Programmatic Agreement for the Main Post Update, October 21, 2010

Rehabilitation and new construction associated with the Presidio Lodge may only proceed as follows:

216 217

218

219 220 221

222 223 224 225

226 227 228 229

230 231 232

233 234 235 236 237

238 239 240

241

242 243

244 245 246 247 248 249

250

i. Non-NHL contributing Building 34 will be demolished.

ii. Total new construction for lodging use on the site bound by Lincoln Boulevard, Sheridan Avenue, Graham and Anza Streets will not exceed 70,000 sq/ft (reference conceptual site plan attached as Appendix D).

iii. New construction will be roughly based on the historic barracks layout that was present between Anza and Graham Streets (ca. 1860-1945), with heights not to exceed 30’; the southern edge of new construction will be set back no less than 150’ from Building 95 (reference conceptual site plan attached as Appendix D).

iv. Designs for foundations, utility connections and underground parking using the basement of Building 34 will take into account the presence of subsurface archaeological features, and the Trust will seek solutions through the review process to avoid adverse effects associated with excavation.

v. Buildings 86 and 87 may be adaptively reused for lodging according to treatment recommendations in an HSR, developed according to terms set forth in Stipulation II(E) and the Secretary’s Standards.

vi. Prior to completion of schematic designs for the Presidio Lodge, an Archaeological Management Assessment (AMA) will be prepared (reference Stipulation II(G)). If the AMA anticipates an adverse effect to archaeological features, the Trust will draft a proposed Treatment Plan according to terms set forth in Stipulation II(G)2.

vii. Reviews of rehabilitation and new construction will be conducted according to terms set forth in Stipulation II(C) and will follow conceptual plans attached as Appendix D.

d. Presidio Theatre

Rehabilitation and new construction associated with the Presidio Theatre (Building 99) may only proceed as follows:

i. The Finding of Effect for the Main Post Update acknowledges that construction of an 18,000 sq/ft addition would have an adverse effect on the Theatre. In order to minimize that effect, Building 99 and its surrounding landscape will be rehabilitated and new construction designed according to the treatment recommendations in an HSR, developed according to terms set forth in Stipulation II(E). The HSR will presume an addition of 18,000 square feet.;

ii. The interior of Building 99 will be retained as a single auditorium.

7 Programmatic Agreement for the Main Post Update, October 21, 2010

iii. An addition not to exceed 18,000 sq/ft, including a transparent connector, may be located to the west of Building 99, with a height not to exceed the eave of Building 99.

251 252 253

254 255 256

257 258 259

260

261 262

263 264 265 266

267 268 269 270

271 272 273

274 275 276

277

278 279 280

281

282 283 284 285 286 287

iv. Designs for the addition will take into account the presence of subsurface archaeological features, and the Trust will seek solutions through the review process to avoid adverse effects associated with excavation.

v. Review of rehabilitation and new construction will be conducted according to terms set forth in Stipulation II(C) below, and will follow conceptual plans attached as Appendix E.

e. Presidio Chapel

Rehabilitation and new construction associated with the Presidio Chapel (Building 130) may only proceed as follows:

i. In order to minimize the effect of an addition, Building 130 and its surrounding landscape will be rehabilitated and new construction designed according to the treatment recommendations in an HSR, developed according to terms set forth in Stipulation II(E). The HSR will presume an addition of 4,000 square feet.

ii. An addition not to exceed 4,000 sq/ft may be located to the west of Building 130, with a height not to exceed the sills of the west elevation windows; the addition will be perpendicular to the west wall of the sanctuary, allowing a large portion of the west wall to be visible.

iii. Designs for the addition will take into account the presence of subsurface archaeological features and the Trust will seek solutions through the review process to avoid adverse effects associated with excavation.

iv. Review of rehabilitation and new construction will be conducted according to terms set forth in Stipulation II(C), and will follow conceptual plans attached as Appendix F.

f. Pedestrian Access & Parking Improvements

Pedestrianization of specified roads and development of the following parking facilities in the Main Post may only proceed in accordance with the Secretary’s Standards and as follows:

i. Traffic signals will not be installed at any location in the Main Post.

ii. Portions of Arguello Boulevard (between Moraga and Sheridan Avenues) and Sheridan Avenue (between Graham and Montgomery Streets) will be closed to vehicular traffic using removable bollards; historic widths and alignments of these NHL-contributing resources will be retained and roads will be resurfaced with a historically compatible paving material; reviews for treatment of historic roads will be conducted according to terms set forth in Stipulation II(C).

8 Programmatic Agreement for the Main Post Update, October 21, 2010

iii. In coordination with the SHPO, a determination of eligibility (DOE) to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) will be completed regarding Building 385 in accordance with Stipulation II(I), as associated with the Moraga Avenue parking lot, within three (3) months after the execution of the Agreement. If the building is found eligible to the NRHP the building will be documented in accordance with Stipulation II(D)(1).

288 289 290 291 292 293

294 295 296 297

298 299 300 301 302 303 304

305 306

307

308

309 310 311 312 313 314

315 316 317 318

319

320 321 322 323

iv. Parking lots at Taylor Road and Moraga Avenue will be developed to avoid adverse effects to Buildings 113, 118 and 386, according to conceptual plans attached as Appendix G; treatment of archaeological resources will follow terms set forth in Stipulation II(G).

v. The Main Post Bluff parking facility will be developed according to conceptual plans attached as Appendix G; an archaeological Identification Plan will be developed for the Main Post Bluff parking facility prior to completion of schematic designs. An AMA will be prepared based on any additional testing that may be required according to the Identification Plan. If the AMA anticipates an adverse effect to archaeological features, the Trust will draft a proposed Treatment Plan according to terms set forth in Stipulation II(G)2.

vi. Reviews for the design of the parking facility will be conducted according to terms set forth in Stipulation II(C).

B. Development of Design Guidelines & Cultural Landscape Documentation

1. Cultural Landscape Report

The Trust will organize, update and supplement existing cultural landscape documentation into a Cultural Landscape Report for the Main Post (CLR-MP) according to the format recommended by Chapter 7 (Management of Cultural Landscapes) of NPS 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline within six (6) months of the execution of this agreement document. The CLR-MP will be developed according to the process described in Appendix K.

Focused cultural landscape and planning & design guidelines may be completed for the Chapel, Theater and Taylor Road Parking areas prior to the completion of the broader CLR-MP and Main Post Planning & Design Guidelines. These focused studies would receive the same level of review as the larger studies, as described in Appendix K.

2. Main Post District-Wide Guidelines

The Planning District Concepts and Guidelines for the Main Post District that are included in the 2002 PTMP (pp. 62-69) remain the overarching guidance under this Agreement. The Trust will also revise the February 2007 Main Post Planning & Design Guidelines (available on the Trust’s website at www.presidio.gov) according to the Final Main Post

9 Programmatic Agreement for the Main Post Update, October 21, 2010

Update within six (6) months of the execution of this agreement. The updated Main Post Planning & Design Guidelines will be appended to the CLR-MP, and developed according to the process described in Appendix K.

324 325 326

327

328 329 330 331 332

333

334 335 336

337 338 339 340

341 342 343

344 345 346 347 348

349 350 351 352 353 354

3. Project-Specific Design Guidelines

Project-specific design guidelines for the Presidio Lodge, Presidio Theatre and Presidio Chapel will be based on the CLR-MP, revised Main Post Planning and Design Guidelines, and treatment recommendations in the HSRs for the applicable buildings. These design guidelines shall be finalized as part of the HSR for each project, and shall constitute final design guidelines, to be considered in project design reviews as set forth in Appendix K.

4. Coordination with Design of the Main Parade

a. Guidelines will be included in the updated Main Post Planning and Design Guidelines to ensure compatibility between the Presidio Lodge design and the rehabilitated Main Parade.

b. Project specific design guidelines for the Presidio Lodge will incorporate directives from the Main Post Planning and Design Guidelines ensuring compatibility between the new Lodge construction and the adjacent Main Parade.

c. Prior to finalizing schematic designs for the eastern edge of the Main Parade (also known as the “Anza Esplanade”, reference Appendix H), the Trust will hold a public meeting on the proposed design for that feature.

d. Following the public meeting the Trust FPO or designee will distribute a 90% design development submittal to the signatory and concurring parties for review. The design submittal will be made available via the Trust website (www.presidiotrust.gov), in hard copy in the Trust’s Library, or in hard copy mailed upon request.

e. Written comments from the signatory parties on these design submissions received by the Trust within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the submission will be considered. If a party does not comment within twenty-one (21) calendar days, and does not notify the Trust and request an additional period to submit comments that shall not exceed ten (10) calendar days, the Trust may proceed.

10 Programmatic Agreement for the Main Post Update, October 21, 2010

C. Project Design Reviews – New Construction and Rehabilitation 355

356

357 358 359 360

361 362 363 364

365 366 367 368

369

370 371 372 373 374

375 376 377 378 379

380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387

388 389 390 391

392 393 394

395

1. Design Review Steps, Process for PA-MPU Projects

a. Using site-specific and district-wide design guidelines, the design guidelines in the PTMP, and/or treatment recommendations from HSRs, the Trust FPO or designee will work with project proponents to develop designs for new construction and rehabilitation described under Stipulation II(A)(1)(a-f).

b. The Trust is responsible for ensuring that design submittals are complete prior to distributing them for review. These designs will be submitted to signatory and concurring parties, and the public, for further consultation and comment according to the processes described in Appendix K.

c. The Trust FPO or designee will be responsible for notifying participating parties of the intent to hold public meetings and on-site briefings in accordance with Appendix K at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the event taking place.

2. Consultation on Treatment of Buildings 40 and 41

a. Prior to completion of schematic designs for El Presidio interpretive landscape, and after the completion of the CLR, the Trust will initiate consultation with signatory and concurring parties to determine the appropriate treatment of Buildings 40 and 41, and will consider all measures for avoidance, minimization or mitigation.

b. Because the landscape design for El Presidio will be phased, phases of the plan that do not propose to adversely affect Buildings 40 and 41 may proceed according to the process described in Appendix K. Implementation of earlier phases of the treatment plan will not preclude any outcome as to the final treatment of Buildings 40 or 41.

c. The Trust FPO or designee will initiate consultation by notifying signatory and concurring parties of its intent to hold a public meeting thirty (30) calendar days prior to scheduling the meeting. Trust staff will present proposals, with the full range of treatment options, related to the above-referenced project at the session and will solicit comment from attendees. Following the public meeting, the Trust, NPS, SHPO and concurring parties will meet to consider the proposals and comments from the meeting and discuss how effects should be resolved.

d. Where the parties agree on how effects will be resolved, they shall document such agreement along with a process for implementing the terms of agreement (including, but not limited to, documentation, rehabilitation and/or relocation plans, or other mitigation measures).

e. If, after consultation, the parties do not agree on how effects will be resolved, then the FPO or designee shall notify the ACHP and treat the matter as an objection under the terms of Stipulation V(A) Dispute Resolution.

D. HABS/ HAER/HALS Documentation & Other Mitigation Measures

11 Programmatic Agreement for the Main Post Update, October 21, 2010

1. Prior to demolition of Building 46, finalizing the treatment plan for Buildings 40 or 41, or demolition of any building that has been found individually eligible to the NRHP in accordance with Stipulation II(I) or that is subsequently found to be contributing to the NHLD, the Trust will complete recordation and documentation of these resources, as necessary, in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation, prior to start of construction. The Presidio Trust shall consult with the NPS HABS/HAER/HALS program in the PWRO to determine the level and kind of recordation appropriate for the resources.

396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404

405 406 407 408

409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417

418

419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426

427 428 429

430

431 432 433 434 435 436

437

438 439

2. In addition to the requisite copies for final submission to the Heritage Documentation Programs, the Trust will make archival, digital and bound library-quality copies of HABS/HAER/HALS documentation available, as appropriate, to the NPS/GGNRA Archives and Records Center.

3. The signatory parties may develop additional mitigation measures to resolve the demolition of eligible or contributing buildings through consultation not to exceed fifteen (15) calendar days. Where the signatory parties agree on the development of additional mitigation measures, they shall document such agreement along with a process for implementing the terms of agreement. If, after consultation, the signatory parties do not agree on the development of additional mitigation measures, then the FPO or designee shall notify the ACHP and treat the matter as an objection under the terms of Stipulation V(A) Dispute Resolution.

E. Historic Structures Reports

1. The Trust will prepare HSRs for Buildings 86/87, 99 and 130. The HSRs will be written in accordance with the standards established in Preservation Brief 43: The Preparation and Use of Historic Structure Reports (National Park Service, 2005). The HSRs will include a history of the property/building, construction history, archaeology, architectural evaluation, conditions assessment, maintenance requirements, recommendations for proposed work, copies of original drawings and specifications (if available), current drawings if different from the original, and historic and current photographs.

2. HSRs will be developed following the execution of this agreement document, and completed prior to additional design development. HSRs will be developed according to the process described in Appendix K.

F. Salvage

For the historic properties that will be demolished under Stipulation II(A), the Trust’s qualified personnel will conduct a documented inspection to identify architectural elements and objects that may be reused in rehabilitating similar historic structures, or that may be preserved in a museum collection in accordance with the Secretary’s Standards. These decisions will be included in the annual report submitted according to Stipulation IV(A).

G. Archaeology Process

The Trust shall take all reasonable measures to protect archaeological sites and features identified inside the NHLD. To accomplish this and inform the design process, an

12 Programmatic Agreement for the Main Post Update, October 21, 2010

Archaeological Management Assessment (AMA) shall be prepared for individual projects or groups of related projects described under Stipulation II(A)(1)(a-g) by a qualified archaeologist prior to the completion of schematic design. The Trust’s Principal Archaeologist will provide copies of completed AMA’s in the Trust’s PTPA Annual Report. Based on the assessment in the Final Finding of Effect, the AMA will outline a course of action for the projects. This course of action shall include one or more of the following:

440 441 442 443 444 445 446

447

448 449 450 451 452 453 454

455

456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468

469

470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479

480

481 482 483 484

1. Identification Plan

A project-specific plan shall be developed at the completion of the schematic phase for projects anticipated to have an adverse effect but that require further identification to understand the content and dimensions of the features, to assess the nature and extent of the effect, and/or to guide continuing efforts to avoid or minimize the adverse effect. For archaeological features identified the Trust may assume eligibility. Identification will further refine recommendations in the AMA and may lead to a monitoring or treatment plan.

2. Treatment Plan

A project-specific plan shall be developed for those projects that have unavoidable adverse effects and where existing identification is sufficient to proceed to treatment, or for which further identification is incorporated within the treatment plan. If through identification the plan anticipates and includes the treatment of prehistoric resources the Trust will seek to incorporate Native American comments and concerns, taking into account direct affects to cultural resources as well as indirect affects to Native American cultural values. The plan will describe protection measures for unaffected archaeological features, relevant research questions to be answered, methods for data recovery, monitoring during construction, responsibilities and coordination, and the interpretation and curation of recovered materials. The plan will describe the mitigation sufficiently to serve as a scope of work and for the purpose of developing a budget. Treatment Plans will be reviewed according to terms set forth in Appendix K.

3. Monitoring Plan

A project-specific plan shall be developed for those projects that are not anticipated to have an adverse effect, or that have been designed to avoid adverse effect during design development but that nonetheless are within proximity to identified or predicted archaeological features. The monitoring plan will describe measures to protect archaeological features, and in the event that Native American human remains are encountered will include protocol measures adhering to NAGPRA and all applicable state and federal laws; the monitoring plan will also include the proposed location and frequency of monitoring along with required documentation procedures. Measures to identify, assess, and determine the appropriate treatment of archeological features should they be encountered will be consistent with the discovery protocols.

4. Discovery Protocol

A standard response protocol shall be developed by the Trust within thirty (30) calendar days of the execution of this agreement for all projects in the event of a discovery. For projects without any anticipated effects, this will be the only condition required prior to implementation. In the event of a discovery the Trust may assume

13 Programmatic Agreement for the Main Post Update, October 21, 2010

eligibility for the purposes of treatment. Should circumstances arise where the Trust cannot address discoveries in a manner consistent with the protocol, the Trust shall notify the SHPO and NPS of the discovery and any project-related time constraints, then agree upon reasonable time frames for consultation. The Trust shall take into account any timely comments prior to making a final decision on treatment. This protocol will describe the Trust’s methods to comply with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492

493

494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504

505

506 507 508 509 510 511

H. Archaeology Program for El Presidio and the Main Post

In keeping with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Preservation Programs pursuant to Section 110 of the NHPA (1998) the Trust shall institute an archaeology program to further identify, research, and use the archeological sites and features within the NHLD as public interpretive facilities. This effort will focus on El Presidio and will include ongoing scholarship, incremental conservation-minded excavation, landscape commemoration that preserves subsurface features, interpretation of the archaeology process and findings for the public, and dissemination of the information being recovered through educational programs. To provide necessary detail for the management approach, the archaeological methods involved, and the landscape designs for the site of El Presidio described under Stipulation II(A)(1)(a), the Trust will further develop the following documents:

1. Levantar

The Trust shall update and finalize Levantar the Archaeological Management Plan (AMP) for El Presidio (drafted and reviewed in 2004 per Stipulation XII(E) of the PTPA, and available on the Trust’s website at www.presidiotrust.gov) within ninety (90) calendar days of the execution of this agreement to reflect the direction provided in the Main Post Update and in this Agreement. Following execution of this Agreement, the updated version of Levantar will be distributed to the signatory and concurring parties to this PA via the Trust’s website (www.presidiotrust.gov) and via hard copy in the Trust’s Library for comment. Written comments from the parties that are received by the Trust within ninety (90) calendar days of the review session will be considered. If a party does not comment within ninety (90) calendar days, and does not notify the Trust to request an additional period to submit comments that shall not exceed ten (10) calendar days, the Trust may proceed with finalization of the document.

512 513 514 515 516 517 518

519

520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530

2. Standards and Guidelines

The Trust shall develop standards and guidelines to direct archaeological methods at El Presidio and the Main Post for field investigations, laboratory processes, mapping, and reporting. These standards and guidelines will facilitate both current interpretation and future research, and will ensure consistency amongst the various archaeological initiatives of the Trust and its academic and professional partners. These standards will be informed by the agreement developed between NPS-GGNRA and the Trust referenced in Stipulation II(A)(1)(b)(iii). The standards and guidelines will be completed within twenty-four (24) months of the execution of this Agreement, and will be submitted to SHPO for a twenty-one (21) calendar day review. This report will be periodically updated to reflect developments in the field of archaeology.

14 Programmatic Agreement for the Main Post Update, October 21, 2010

I. Individual Eligibility of Post-World War II Resources 531 532 533 534 535 536 537

538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549

Within three (3) months of execution of this Agreement, the Trust will complete a DOE to the NRHP eligibility with the SHPO for post-World War II resources in the Main Post, particularly Buildings 34, 63, 68, 93, 98, 205, 215, 231, 385 and 387. If a building is found individually eligible to the NRHP it will be documented in accordance with Stipulation II(D)(1) prior to start of construction.

III. PTPA UPDATE

The Trust will initiate consultation to review the PTPA for amending or updating with that document’s signatory and concurring parties within six (6) months of executing this Agreement with the goal of completion by 2013 when the PTPA expires.

IV. ADMINISTRATIVE STIPULATIONS

A. Reporting On or before January 30 of each reporting year, so long as this Agreement is in effect, the Trust will include project updates in conjunction with its PTPA annual report, describing how the agency is carrying out its responsibilities under this Agreement. The Trust will make the annual report available via its website (www.presidiotrust.gov), and a hard copy in the Trust Library, and through a mailing to the signatory and concurring parties to this agreement.

550 551 552

553

554 555 556 557 558

559

560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567

568

569 570 571 572 573 574 575

B. Professional Standards

All activities regarding history, collections management, historical archaeology and prehistoric archaeology, architecture, landscape architecture, and architectural history that are accomplished pursuant to this Agreement will be carried out by or under the direct supervision of persons meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards relevant to the portion of the project being considered.

C. Report Dissemination

The Trust will require that all reports resulting from implementation of treatment plans, the AMP and AMAs meet contemporary professional standards and the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation; and the “Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation” (Federal Register, 2003). Copies of all final reports will be provided to SHPO, the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, and the NPS/GGNRA Archives and Records Center.

D. Post Review Discoveries

If it appears that an undertaking will affect a previously unidentified property that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register, or that may contribute to the NHLD, or affect a known historic property in an unanticipated manner, the Trust will stop construction activities in the vicinity of the discovery and take all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize harm to the property. The Trust shall notify signatories within two (2) working days of the discovery by phone and shall e-mail and describe the FPO or designee’s assessment of National Register eligibility of the property and proposed

15 Programmatic Agreement for the Main Post Update, October 21, 2010

actions to resolve the adverse effects. The signatory parties shall respond within two (2) working days of the notification by e-mail. The Trust FPO or designee shall take into account their recommendations regarding National Register eligibility and proposed actions, and then shall carry out appropriate actions. The Trust FPO or designee shall provide the signatories a report of the actions when they are completed.

576 577 578 579 580

581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626

V. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

A. Raising and Resolving Objections – Signatory Parties

1. Should any signatory party object to the manner in which the terms of this Agreement are implemented or to any documentation prepared in accordance with and subject to the terms of this Agreement, the party will notify the Trust and the other signatory parties. The Trust will consult with the other signatory parties for no more than fourteen (14) calendar days to resolve the objection, once the Trust notifies all signatory parties of the objection. If the signatory parties agree that the objection is resolved through such consultation, the issue in question may proceed in accordance with the terms of that resolution. An extension of the consultation period may be requested by signatory parties not to exceed an additional ten (10) calendar days.

2. If, after initiating such consultation, the Trust determines that the objection cannot be

resolved through consultation, the Trust FPO or designee will forward all documentation, including the Trust's proposed response to the objection, to the ACHP.

a. The ACHP shall provide the Trust with its advice on the resolution of the

objection within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the documentation. Prior to reaching a final decision on the dispute, the Trust shall prepare a written response that takes into account any timely advice or comments regarding the dispute from the ACHP, signatories and concurring parties, and shall provide them with a copy of this written response. The Trust will then proceed according to its final decision.

b. If the ACHP does not provide its advice regarding the dispute within the

thirty (30) calendar day time period, the Trust may make a final decision on the dispute and may proceed accordingly. Prior to reaching such a final decision, the Trust shall prepare a written response that takes into account any timely comments regarding the dispute from the signatories and concurring parties to the Agreement, and shall provide all parties to this Agreement with a copy of such written response.

c. The Trust's responsibility to carry out all other actions subject to the terms of

this Agreement that are not the subject of the dispute shall remain unchanged.

B. Raising and Resolving Objections – Concurring Parties

The Trust will respond to objections raised by concurring parties and the public in writing within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the objection. The Trust will provide copies of all objections made by concurring parties to the signatory parties. The Trust may discuss with signatory parties issues that are raised by concurring

16 Programmatic Agreement for the Main Post Update, October 21, 2010

parties prior to responding. The Trust will provide concurring and signatory parties concurrently with a copy of its final written decision regarding any objection.

627 628 629 630

631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652

653

654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673

VI. AMENDMENTS AND TERMINATION

A. Amendment Any amendment to this Agreement must be made in writing and signed by all signatories.

While consultation on the amendment is underway, the terms of the existing PA will remain in effect. The amendment will be effective on the date a copy signed by all of the signatories is received by the ACHP or such later date as may be specified in the amendment.

B. Termination

1. If any signatory party to this Agreement determines that its terms will not or cannot be carried out, that party shall immediately consult with the other parties to attempt to develop an amendment per Stipulation V(A), above. If within thirty (30) calendar days (or within another time period agreed to by all signatories) an amendment cannot be reached, any signatory party may terminate the Agreement upon written notification to the other signatory parties.

2. Once the Agreement is terminated, and prior to work continuing on the Undertaking, the Trust shall either (a) execute a programmatic agreement pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.14(b)(3), or (b) review such projects under Subpart B of 36 CFR Part 800. The Trust shall notify the signatories as to the course of action it will pursue.

VII. DURATION

A. This Agreement will be in effect through the Trust’s implementation of the Undertaking, and will expire and have no further force or effect when the Trust, in consultation with the other signatories, determines that the terms of this Agreement have been fulfilled. The Trust will provide the other signatories with written notice of its determination and of the expiration of this Agreement.

B. Five (5) years after the date of executing this Agreement, the Trust FPO or designee will notify signatory parties in writing to organize a review of the Agreement for the purposes of amending or updating its terms. Ten (10) years after the date of executing this Agreement, if its stipulations are not carried out it will expire and prior to work continuing on the Undertaking, the Trust shall either (a) execute a programmatic agreement pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.14(b)(3), or (b) review such projects under Subpart B of 36 CFR Part 800. Prior to such time, the Trust may consult with the other signatories to reconsider the terms of the Agreement and may extend or amend it in accordance with Stipulation V(A) above. The Trust shall notify the signatories as to the course of action it will pursue.

VIII. CONCURRING PARTY INVOLVMENT IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS

AGREEMENT

17 Programmatic Agreement for the Main Post Update, October 21, 2010

A. No work stipulated per this Agreement involving concurring parties shall proceed until forty five (45) calendar days after the execution of this Agreement by the required signatories.

674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691

B. If a consulting party does not sign this Agreement as a concurring party within forty five

(45) calendar days after the execution of this Agreement by the required signatories, the Presidio Trust may proceed with work stipulated per this Agreement involving concurring parties.

C. A consulting party can become a concurring party after the forty five (45) calendar-day period with the written agreement of all signatory parties.

D. If a consulting party becomes a concurring party to the Agreement after forty five (45) calendar days after the execution of the Agreement subject to stipulation VIII(C) above,, the Presidio Trust shall not be required to revisit prior completed consultations stipulated in this Agreement or reconsider previous findings or determinations made prior to the date that such consulting party becomes a concurring party.

18 Programmatic Agreement for the Main Post Update, October 21, 2010

692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702

703

704

705

706 707 708

EXECUTION of this Agreement by the signatories and implementation of its terms evidence that the Trust has afforded the signatory and consulting pari ies an opportunity tcomment on the Underiaking and its effects, and has taken into account the effects of thiUnderiaking on historic properties, and further that in compliance wi th the requ irements CFR Part 800 and Section I IO(f) ofthc NHPA, the Trust has afforded the ACH P a reasoopporiunity to co mment on the Undertaking. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparis and each counterpari shall be deemed to be an original documentexecuted counterpa11s together shall constitute one and the same document, and any counterpart signature pages may be detached and assembled to form a single original document.

o s of36 nable

. All

I 9 Programmatic Agreement for the Main Post Update, October 2 I, 20 I 0

Executive Director

23 Programmatic Agreement for the Main Post Update, October 21, 2010

724 725

726

727

728

729

730

731

732

733

734

735

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Main Post Update (Undertaking)

Appendix B: Final Finding of Effect for the Main Post Update (July 2009)

Appendix C: Conceptual Site Plans for the Archaeology Lab and Curation Facility

Appendix D: Conceptual Site Plans for the Presidio Lodge

Appendix E: Conceptual Site Plans for the Presidio Theatre

Appendix F: Conceptual Site Plans for the Presidio Chapel

Appendix G: Conceptual Site Plans for Pedestrian Access and Parking Improvements

Appendix H: Conceptual Plans for the Main Parade Rehabilitation

Appendix I: Presidio Trust Programmatic Agreement (PTPA, 2002)

Appendix J: Glossary of Terms

Appendix K: Design Review Steps, Process for PA-MPU Projects

F I G U R E B : A R E A O F P O T E N T I A L E F F E C T: T H E P R E S I D I O O F S A N F R A N C I S C O N AT I O N A L H I S T O R I C L A N D M A R K D I S T R I C T

APPENDIX A: AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT (APE) FOR THE MAIN POST UPDATE (UNDERTAKING)

Appendix B: Final Finding of Effect The Final Finding of Effect for the Main Post Update (FFOE, July 2009) can be found on the Trust website at: http://library.presidio.gov/archive/documents/MP_FFOE_Jul2009.pdf

APPENDIX C: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANS FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGY LAB AND CURATION FACILITIES

BUILDING 47

BUILDING 44

BUILDING 48

BUILDING 46

Fenced Outdoor Work Area

BUILDING 49

BUILDING 45

MORAGA AVE.

Curatorial Storage

Workshop/Tools

Conservation Lab

Staff Offices

New Addition

Lobby and ExhibitionSpecial EventsTheatre RoomArchaeology EducationArchaeology LabCourtyards

• RehabilitateNHL-contributingBuildings47and48.

• DemolishNHL-contributingBuilding46;provideHABSrecordationforBuilding46.

• Limitnewconstructionto500squarefeettoconnectBuildings47and48;additionnottoexceedtheheightoftheroofridgeofBuildings47and48.

PROJECT PARAMETERS

N

ArchaeologyLabandCurationFacilities

OutdoorEducationandWorkArea

ConnectingStructure

BuildingRemoved(Building46)

39

386

12

97

1516 14 13 1011

116

130

99

135

128127 129

107108

3

38

9 8 7 6 5

37

86

4

35

6867

210

36

218

205

223

222224

227228

229

610

653

603

605

606

Infantry Terrace

Martinez St.

Moraga St.

Arguello B

lvd.

Infantry Terrace

Wallen

Quarry Rd

FUNSTON AVE.Hardie Ave.

PENA ST

Presidio Blvd.

Girard Rd.

Ord St.

Riley Ave.

Fisher

Loop

Bliss Rd.

Lincoln Blvd.

MESA ST.

Taylor Rd.

MONTGOMERY ST.

ANZA ST.

SAL

ST.

GRAHAM ST.

KEYES AVE.

CAN

BY S

T.

LIN

COLN

BLV

D.

Halleck St.

Mason St.

Gor

gas

Ave

.

Thornburg Rd

Edie Rd.

Doyle Drive / Highway 101

123

93

204

126 125 124122

201

41 40

211

231

230

118

113

98

MacArthur

Portola

MacArthur

M a i n P a r a d e G r o u n d

2

TennisCourt

51 56

57 58

5964

65

63

44

47

48

50

49

45

42

220

225

385387

101100 102 NPS BUILDING 103 104 105 106

Crissy Marsh

ARGUELLO

2 6 E X I S T I N G B U I L D I N G U S E

Retail

Office

Lodging

Infrastructure

Residential

Recreation

Under / Pending Construction

Surface Parking

Main Post Planning District Cultural / Educational

Vacant / Underutilized400 FT0

Source: Presidio Trust 2008

S a n

F r a n c i s c o

B a y

C r i s s y

M a r s h

BUILDING 39

386 97

10

130

99

135

107108

3

BUILDING 38

9 8 7 6 5

BUILDING 37

BUILDING 86 BUILDING 87

BUILDING 86 BUILDING 87

4

BUILDING 35

67

BUILDING 210

211

BUILDING36

BUILDING 218

223

230222

Quarry Rd

Girard Rd.

Edie Rd.

123

93

122

201

41 40

65

63

50

49

45

220

385387

100 104 106

121516 14 13 11

205

118

113

MAIN PARADE

OLD PARADE

BUILDING215

BUILDING 95

SHER

IDAN

AVE

.

150’

BUILDING 34

30’ Height Limit95

15’ Height Limit

150’ NewConstruction

Office/maybeincorporatedintoLodge

ExistingBuildings

ConnectingOpen-AirPorches

UndergroundGarage(Building34)

APPENDIX D: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANS FOR THE PRESIDIO LODGE

• Demolishnon-NHLcontributingBuilding34.

• Limitnewconstructionto70,000squarefeet.

• ApplydesignguidelinesandHSRtreatmentrecommendations;designreviewprocessfornewconstruction,guidedbyPA-MPU.

• DesignthelodgetorespondtoMainParadeGroundrehabilitationdesign.

• Limitheightofnewconstructionto30feetaboveexistinggrade.

• BasethebuildingfootprintonthepatternofthehistoricbarracksthatonceoccupiedthesitebetweenGrahamStreetandAnzaStreet.

• Setbackthesouthernedgeofnewconstructionatleast150’fromBuilding95toavoidElPresidioarchaeology.

• Identificationofburiedarchaeologicalfeatureswillbecompletedpriortofinaldesigntoinformeffortstoavoidorminimizeadverseeffects.

• AnundergroundparkinggaragemayalsobeconstructedutilizingthebasementofBuilding34toservethePresidioLodge(upto50spaces).

• Buildings86and87mayberehabilitatedandincorporatedintotheLodge.

PROJECT PARAMETERS

3 S

ITE

PLA

N:

PR

ES

IDIO

TH

EAT

RE

(B

UIL

DIN

G 9

9) W

ITH

AD

DIT

ION

Eave

HeightLimit

BUILDING 99

BUILDING 99

MORAGA AVE.

MO

NTG

OM

ERY

ST.

BLISS RD.

INFA

NTR

Y TE

RRAC

E

Entrance

MONTGOMERY ST.INFANTRY TERRACE

15’Setback

fromCurb

Align

Align

Lobb

y

AuditoriumExisting Historic TheatreAllowable Area for New Construction

APPENDIX E: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANS FOR THE PRESIDIO THEATRE

NewConstruction

ExistingHistoricTheater

ConnectingStructure

• PrepareanHSRforBuilding99.

• RehabilitateNHL-contributingBuilding99,retainingitssingleauditoriumandhistoricorientationtoMoragaAvenue.

• Limitnewconstructionto18,000squarefeet;limitheighttotheeaveoftheexistingtheater.

• Pullnewconstructionawayfromthehistoricbuildingwithatransparentconnector.

• ApplydesignguidelinesandHSRtreatmentrecommendations;designreviewprocessfornewconstructionguidedbythePA-MPU.

PROJECT PARAMETERS

APPENDIX F: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANS FOR THE PRESIDIO CHAPEL

FIGURE 17: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FOR THE PRESIDIO CHAPEL

FISHER LOOP

BUILDING 130

Terrace

Hei

ght L

imit

Bott

om o

f W

indo

w S

ill

Chap

el F

loor

BUIL

DIN

G 1

30

No

new

bui

ldin

g el

emen

ts a

llow

ed to

th

e le

ft of

this

line

FISH

ER

LOO

P

20’

Chapel Floor BUILDING 130

20’Height Limit Bottom of Window Sill

20’

NewConstruction

ExistingHistoricChapel

ConnectingStructure

FISHER LOOP

BUILDING 130

Terrace

Hei

ght L

imit

Bott

om o

f W

indo

w S

ill

Chap

el F

loor

BUIL

DIN

G 1

30

No

new

bui

ldin

g el

emen

ts a

llow

ed to

th

e le

ft of

this

line

FISH

ER

LOO

P

20’

Chapel Floor BUILDING 130

20’Height Limit Bottom of Window Sill

20’cu

ion

FISHER LO

OP

BUILD

ING

130

Height LimitBottom of

Window Sill

Chapel Floor

BUILDING 130

No new building elements allowed to

the left of this line

FISHER LOOP

20’

Chapel Floor

BUILD

ING

13020’

Height Lim

it Bottom of W

indow Sill

20’

East Elevation North Elevation

• PrepareanHSRforBuilding130.

• RehabilitateNHL-contributingBuilding130.

• Limitnewconstructionto4,000squarefeetonthewestofbuilding130;limittheheightoftheconnectingstructuretothesillsofthewestelevationwindowsandtheheightofnewconstructionto20feetabovefinishedfloorlevel.

• Orienttheadditiontobeperpendiculartothewestwallofthesanctuary,allowingalargeportionofthewestwalltobevisible.

• ApplydesignguidelinesandHSRtreatmentrecommendations;designreviewprocessfornewconstructionguidedbyPA-MPU.

PROJECT PARAMETERS

APPENDIX G: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANS FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND PARKING IMPROVEMENTS

• TrafficsignalswillnotbeinstalledintheMainPost.

• PortionsoftheNHL-contributingArguelloBoulevardandSheridanAvenuewillbeconvertedtopedestrianuse.

• CurrentwidthsandalignmentsofNHL-contributingroadswillberetained;roadswillberesurfacedwithahistoricallycompatiblepavingmaterial.

• Identificationofburiedarchaeologicalfeatureswillbecompletedpriortofinaldesigntoinformeffortstoavoidorminimizeadverseeffects.

• TaylorStreetparkinglotwillretainhistoricgarages,Buildings113and118;MoragaAvenueparkinglotwillretainBuilding386.

PROJECT PARAMETERS

39

386

12

97

1516 14 13 1011

116

130

99

135

128127 129

107108

3

38

9 8 7 6 5

37

86 87

4

35

6867

210

36

218

223

222224

227228

229

610

653

603

605

606

Infantry Terrace

Arguell

o Blvd

.

Infantry Terrace

Wallen

Quarry Rd

Funston Ave.Hardie Ave.P

resi

dio

Blv

d.

Girard Rd.

Ord St.

Riley Ave.

Fisher

Loop

Blis

s R

d.

Lincoln Blvd.

Mesa St.S

herid

an A

ve.

Taylor Rd.

Montgomery St.

Anza St.

Sal

St.

Graham St.

Keyes Ave.

Linc

oln

Blv

d.

Halleck St.

Mason St.

Gor

gas

Ave

.

Thor

nbur

g R

d

Edie

Rd.

123

126 125 124122

201

211

118

113

MacArth

ur

Portola

MacArthur

2

TennisCourt

TennisCourt

58

5964

65

44

47

48

50

49

45

42

220

225

95

387

101100 102 NPS 103 104 105 106

Crissy Marsh

Mor

aga

St.

S a n

F r a n c i s c o

B a y

P

P

S a nF r a n c i s c o

B a y

C r i s s y

M a r s h

63

39

121516 14 13 1011

130

99

135

107108

38

97

9 8 7 6 5

37

4

35

67

210

211

36

218

223

222

227228

229

603

Taylor Rd.

123

122

113

201

2

65

50

49

45

42

220

95

387

101100 103 104 105 106

86 87 215

64

Ballfield

386

118

M a i n P a r a d e

102 NPS

Martinez St.

56

57

51

Doyle Drive / Highway 101

3

Pen

a S

t.

Can

by S

t.

93

O l d P a r a d e

41 40

250' 0' 250' 500'

RoadstobePedestrianized

NewParkingLots

NewUndergroundParkingFacilities

MainPostDistrictBoundary

Buildings40/41

APPENDIX H: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR MAIN PARADE REHABILITATION

39

386

12

97

1516 14 13 1011

116

130

99

128127 129

107108

3

38

9 8 7 6 5

37

86 87

4

35

6867

210

36

218

610

653

Infantry Terrace

Arguell

o Blvd

.

Quarry Rd

Funston Ave.Hardie Ave.

Pre

sidi

o B

lvd.

Ord St.

Riley Ave.

Fisher

LoopB

liss

Rd.

Lincoln Blvd.

Mesa St.

She

ridan

Ave

.

Taylor Rd.

Montgomery St.

Anza St.

Sal

St.

Graham St.

Keyes Ave.

Linc

oln

Blv

d.

123

126 125 124122

118

113

2

TennisCourt

58

5964

65

44

47

48

50

49

45

42

387

101100 102 NPS 103 104 105 106

Mor

aga

St.

P

P

63

39

121516 14 13 1011

130

99

107108

38

97

9 8 7 6 5

37

4

35

67

210

36

218

Taylor Rd.

123

122

113

2

65

50

49

45

42

95

387

101100 103 104 105 106

86 87 215

64

Ballfield

386

118

M a i n P a r a d e

102 NPS

Martinez St.

56

57

51

Doyle Drive / Highway 101

3

Pen

a S

t.

Can

by S

t.

93

O l d P a r a d e

125’ 0 250’ RoadstobePedestrianized

Terraces

MainParadeEdges

Buildings

AnzaEsplanade

Appendix I: Presidio Trust Programmatic Agreement The Presidio Trust Programmatic Agreement (PTPA) can be found on the Trust website at: http://library.presidio.gov/archive/documents/ProgrammaticAgreement.pdf

Appendix J: Glossary of Terms Programmatic Agreement for the Main Post Update

Area of Potential Effects (APE): The geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking. Avoidance: One of the three methods for resolving an adverse effect (along with minimization and mitigation) according to 36 CFR Part 800 – Protection of Historic Properties. Avoidance indicates that an action that would have caused an adverse effect will no longer occur (i.e. a building that was slated for demolition will be retained). Adverse effect: Direct or indirect harm to historic properties listed on or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Compatibility: Consistent, congruous; capable of existing together in harmony. Used in the same context here as in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Conceptual plan: Initial designs that initiate the design development process, and include general concepts rather than detailed renderings. Concurring Party: Consulting parties are invited by the agency official to concur with and sign the programmatic agreement. Concurring parties have been granted specific roles and responsibilities that are more limited than those of the signatory parties. Refusal of any party invited to concur does not invalidate the agreement document. Connector: Enclosed or open spaces that function to connect buildings. Construction document (CDs): Drawings, plans and specifications that are created for use by an architect and contractors for pricing and planning construction of a designed building or structure. This level of documentation follows Design Development. Consultation: The process of seeking, discussing, and considering the views of other participants, and, where feasible, seeking agreement with them regarding matters arising in the section 106 process. Cultural Landscape Report (CLR): A comprehensive document that includes documentation, analysis, and evaluation of historical, architectural, archaeological, ethnographic, horticultural, landscape architectural, engineering and ecological data as appropriate. Documentation is assessed to evaluate the history, significance, and integrity of the landscape including treatment recommendations appropriate for the landscape’s significance, condition and planned use, as well as documentation of implemented treatments. Design Development (DD): The process that follows final schematic design, and lays out mechanical electrical, plumbing, structural and architectural details. Often this phase specifies design elements such as material types and location of windows and doors. Design Guidelines: Policies that describe parameters, limits and directives to inform rehabilitation or new construction in order to avoid or minimize impacts to existing historic structures, features and landscapes. Gross building area: Total floor area of a building, measured from its outside walls. Footprint: The ground level square footage of a building.

Historic Structure Reports (HSR): A comprehensive document that provides documentary, graphic, and physical information about a property's history and existing condition to inform preservation planning and make treatment recommendations. The document can also be organized to meet site or project specific goals, such as research objectives or programmatic needs.

Infill construction: New construction that is located within an existing or formerly developed area, such as a building complex or row of buildings. Minimization: One of the three methods for resolving an adverse effect (along with avoidance and mitigation) according to 36 CFR Part 800 – Protection of Historic Properties. Minimization indicates a method or measure designed to lessen the intensity of an impact on a particular resource (i.e. impacts related to new construction are made smaller by reducing or reallocating the total square footage of new construction). Mitigation: One of the three methods for resolving an adverse effect (along with avoidance and minimization) according to 36 CFR Part 800 – Protection of Historic Properties. Mitigation indicates that a separate action is undertaken to compensate for, or otherwise address, an adverse effect (i.e. an agency develops a program to interpret an impacted resource). Height: Measurement taken from the grade level to the highest point of a building. Does not include accessories or wiring that function to service a building. Historic Property: Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria. Invited Signatory: An agency or organization that is invited by the agency official to be a signatory to a programmatic agreement, and has the same rights as required signatories. Public: Any interested individual or group that has not signed the agreement document as either a signatory or concurring party. New Construction: Additional net square footage of built space, excluding landscape improvements and other open space amenities. National Historic Landmark (NHL): A nationally significant historic place designated by the Secretary of the Interior because it possesses exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States. The Presidio was designated an NHL in 1962. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA): Federal legislation passed in 1966 that is intended to preserve historical and archaeological sites in the United States. The act created the National Register of Historic Places, the list of National Historic Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation Offices. Among other things, the act requires Federal agencies to evaluate the impact of all federally funded or permitted projects on historic properties (buildings, archaeological sites, etc.) through a process known as Section 106 review. Plan (or Plan View): A drawing made to scale to represent the top view or a horizontal section of a structure, (i.e. a floor layout of a building). Programmatic Agreement: A document that records the terms and conditions agreed upon to resolve the potential adverse effects of a Federal agency program, undertaking or other situations in accordance with § 800.14(b).

Public Meeting: An in-person gathering whereby the agency presents up-to-date information on projects, takes questions, and engages in a dialogue with interested parties Rehabilitation: According to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. Resolution: A stage in the Section 106 process where adverse effects are addressed through avoidance, minimization or mitigation. Resolution typically concludes with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or Programmatic Agreement (PA). This part of the process is described in the NHPA regulations at 36 CFR 800.6. Schematic design: The process that follows a conceptual design. It should include estimated square footage of each usage type and any other elements that achieve the project goals. During schematic design, an architect commonly develops study drawings that include spatial relationships, scale, and form. Schematic design also is the research phase of the project, when zoning requirements or jurisdictional restrictions are discovered and addressed. Section 106: The section of the NHPA that requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties and seek comments from an independent reviewing agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The purpose of Section 106 is guide consultation to identify historic properties potentially affected by an undertaking, assess the effects of that undertaking, and seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties. Section 110: The section of the NHPA that sets out the broad historic preservation responsibilities of federal agencies to ensure that historic preservation is fully integrated into ongoing programs. Signatory: Signatory parties are required participants in a programmatic agreement. They include the lead agency (in this case, the Trust), the ACHP, NPS and the SHPO. Signatory parties generally have enhanced roles and responsibilities as compared to signatory parties. These typically include the ability to terminate or amend an agreement document. Square footage: The sum of all areas on all floors of a building, measured in feet. Undertaking: A project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; and those requiring a Federal permit, license or approval.   Sources: 36 CFR 800.16 – Definitions; Random House Dictionary; AIA Knowledge Resources Staff; Wikipedia.com; NPS-28 and the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties

Appendix K: Design Review Steps, Process for PA‐MPU Projects  PA‐MPU Projects:  Archaeology Lab & Curatorial Facility  El Presidio: The Birthplace of San Francisco Presidio Lodge  Pedestrian Access (Historic Road Conversions) Presidio Theatre  Parking Improvements (Main Post Bluff Parking 

Facility) Presidio Chapel  Parking Improvements (Moraga Avenue Parking 

Lot) Parking Improvements (Taylor Road Parking Lot)    Review timelines for each phase: twenty‐one (21) calendar days.  Unless otherwise specified, review steps described below involve signatory parties only.  The Trust FPO or designee will be responsible for distributing design submissions and/or information for review. Design submittals and/or information will be made available via the Trust website (www.presidiotrust.gov), in hard copy in the Trust’s Library, or in hard copy mailed upon request.  Written comments from all parties on these design submissions received by the Trust within twenty‐one (21) calendar days of the submissions will be considered. If a party does not comment within twenty‐one (21) days, and does not notify the Trust and request an additional period that shall not exceed ten (10) days, the Trust may proceed.  In the event that multiple review periods overlap, the Trust will consult with signatory parties to prioritize and determine alternative review timelines.  Group A:   Project(s): Presidio Lodge, Presidio Theatre, Presidio Chapel, El Presidio: The Birthplace of San Francisco, Parking Improvements (Main Post Bluff Parking Facility)  Review Process: Begins with conceptual design described by the project parameters in MPU and Appendix D of the PA‐MPU, followed by the below sequence: 

      

CLR, Design  Guidelines 

HSR (bldgs. 86/87, 99, 130), AMA 

100% Concept + Public Meeting

90% Schematic 

50% DD + Concurring 

 Party Review

1 

 

90% CD      Complete

Group B:   Project(s): Parking Improvements (Taylor Road Parking Lot, Moraga Avenue Parking Lot), Pedestrian Access (Historic Road Conversions)  Review Process: Begins with conceptual design described by the project parameters in MPU and Appendix G of the PA‐MPU, followed by the below sequence: 

CLR, Design Guidelines 

AMA  90% Schematic + Public Meeting + Concurring Party review

90% DD       Complete 

Group C:   Project(s): Archaeology Lab & Curatorial Facility  Review Process: Conceptual, schematic, DD and 90% CDs are complete, project parameters in MPU, followed by the below sequence:   

90% CD    Complete 

Process for Development of CLR, HSR’s (for buildings 86/87, 99, 130), Archaeological Treatment Plans, Design Guidelines for the Main Post  Review timelines for each phase: 21 days 

2 

 

On‐site briefings on scope, format, 

Review of 65% draft + Concurring Party review 

 

Review of 95% draft 

    Complete 

Appendix E

PRESIDIO TRUST - 2013 ANNUAL

REPORT LIST OF ACRONYMS

Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP)

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC)

Area of Potential Effect (APE)

Association for Preservation Technology (APT)

Built Environment and Archaeology Treatment Plans (BETP and ATP)

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)

Center for Digital Archaeology (CoDA)

Certificate of Compliance (COC)

Cultural Landscape Report (CLR)

Cultural resource inventory report and finding of effect (CRIR-FOE)

Design development (DD)

Environmental Assessment (EA)

Federal Highways Administration (FHWA)

Federal Preservation Officer (FPO)

International Center to End Violence (ICEV)

National Park Service-Technical Preservation Services (NPS-TPS)

Historic American Building Survey (HABS)

Historic American Engineering Record (HAER)

Historic American Landscape Survey (HALS)

Historic Structure Report (HSR)

Leadership in Engineering and Environmental Design (LEED)

Military Intelligence Service (MIS)

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

National Japanese American Historical Society (NJAHS)

National Historic Landmark (NHL)

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

National Park Service (NPS)

National Park Service - Pacific West Regional Office (NPS-PWRO)

National Park Service - Golden Gate National Recreation Area (NPS-GOGA)

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)

National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP)

Neighborhood Associations for Presidio Planning (NAPP)

Presidio Historical Association (PHA)

Presidio Trust (Trust)

Presidio Trust’s Programmatic Agreement for the Main Post Update (PA-MPU)

Presidio Trust’s Programmatic Agreement (PTPA)

Public-private partnership (P3)

National Historic Landmark District (NHLD)

San Francisco Conservation Corps (SFCC)

San Francisco Architectural Heritage (SFAH)

San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA)

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

Appendix F

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND IDENTIFICATION PLAN

YMCA REACH WETLAND RESTORATION

Prepared by 

Presidio Archaeology Lab Presidio Trust 

Prepared for 

Rania Rayes Planning Department 

Presidio Trust 

January 2013 

2 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND IDENTIFICATION PLAN:

YMCA REACH WETLAND RESTORATION  

I. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND In accordance with Stipulation XII Archaeology of  the  “Programmatic Agreement Among The Presidio 

Trust, National  Park  Service,  The Advisory Council On Historic  Preservation, And  The California  State 

Historic Preservation Officer Regarding The Presidio Of San Francisco, Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area,” the treatment of archaeological properties shall be handled  in accordance with the terms of an 

Archaeological  Management  Assessment  and  Monitoring  Program  (AMA/MP)  that  is  prepared  for 

individual undertakings or groups of related undertakings. This Archaeological Management Assessment 

and Identification Plan (AIP) was prepared for the YMCA Reach Wetland Restoration Project (Project).  

 

Archaeological identification is any investigation that is designed to determine the presence or absence 

of archaeological deposits within a specified area. The purpose of this Archaeological Identification Plan 

(AIP) is to ensure that any significant archaeological resources within the YMCA Reach Project Area are 

identified  prior  to  implementation  of  the  Project  to  ensure  that  adverse  effects  to  significant  or 

potentially significant historic properties are avoided.   

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION YMCA Reach  is  located within  the Tennessee Hollow Watershed  in  the Presidio of San Francisco. The watershed  itself  covers  approximately  270  acres.  Its  defining  feature  is  a  creek  system  with  three tributaries  (Western, Central, and Eastern), which meet near Lover’s Lane Bridge  to  form single creek that  flows  north  to  Crissy  Field Marsh.  The Western  Tributary  is  ephemeral, while  the  Central  and Eastern  tributaries  are  spring‐fed.  Substantial  portions  of  all  three  tributaries were  rechanneled  and filled in the late‐19th and early‐20th centuries (Presidio Trust 2007, 1‐1 to 1‐3).  

The  YMCA Reach Wetland Restoration Project  is  a  continuation of  the  Tennessee Hollow Watershed Revitalization Project.  Previous enhancements completed in the watershed  include the remediation of Fill Site 1 and Landfill 2 and landscape improvements at El Polín.   El Polín, the only named spring in the Presidio, is the headwaters of the Central Tributary.   The project area is currently a low paved area used to stockpile soil, commonly referred to as the “dust bowl”.  It  is bounded by Lincoln Boulevard to the north and east, Presidio Boulevard to the south, and the Presidio Community YMCA and other twentieth century buildings to the west. Eucalyptus, Monterey pine,  and Monterey  cypress, which  are  part  of  the  Presidio’s  Historic  Forest,  flank  the  area.  Other vegetation includes some shrubs and grasses, but the majority of the proposed project area is paved.   The YMCA Wetland Restoration Project is in initial planning phases; final design will depend on a host of factors, including the location of any archaeological or historical resources that require preservation and interpretation. For the purposes of this assessment, the YMCA Reach Schematic Layout and Grading Plan dated 12/12/2012  is used as a baseline  for potential project plans  (see Figure 1). This schematic plan was overlaid on an 1871 topographic map of the Presidio to determine the amount of planned intrusion into native soil that would be required for the project. Grading is designed to be shallow for much of the project area, but up to 10 feet of native soil may be removed in targeted areas, as illustrated on Figure 2. Archaeological identification will focus on these areas of proposed project impacts.  

WETLAND ALT. 1ACREAGE (@ ELEV. 30): 1.2

TREE REMOVALS: 21 TOTAL

WETLAND ALT. 2ACREAGE (@ ELEV. 30): 1.4

YMCA REACH

0 20’ 40’ 100’

NDATE: 12/12/12SCALE: 1”=40’

TREE REMOVAL LEGEND

REQUIRED FOR PROJECT CONSTRUCTION

NEW

30’

A

A

D

D

MANHOLE ALONG AGODA

Sheet No.

By:

Scale:

Date:

Figure 2: Proposed Grading Cuts

1 of 1

Hans Barnaal

09/21/11

1 inch = 50 feet

050 25

Feet

1:600Absolute Scale:

GRIDApproximate Cut into Native Surface (Ft)-10 - -11-9.9 - -9-8.9 - -8-7.9 - -7-6.9 - -6

-5.9 - -5-4.9 - -4-3.9 - -3-2.9 - -2-1.9 - -1-0.9 - 0

YMCAR Layout & Grading 12/12/12Red: Band_1Green: Band_2Blue: Band_3

5 

III. HISTORIC CONTEXT This historic context is adapted in part from Archaeology in America: An Encyclopedia (Blind et al. 2008).   Before the arrival of colonists in 1776, the native population of the San Francisco Bay Area was between 15,000 and 20,000 people.  This population was not homogenous; they were divided into approximately 55  independent  local  tribes who  spoke  five mutually unintelligible  languages,  including Ohlone, Coast Miwok,  Bay Miwok,  Patwin,  and Wappo.  Ethnographers  estimate  that  the  large  villages  in  the  area contained  between  200  and  400  residents.  The  Presidio  of  San  Francisco  is  within  the  traditional territory  of  the  Ohlone  cultural  group,  a  Penutian‐speaking  population  that migrated  into  the  San Francisco  Bay  region  from  the  Central  Valley.  The  exact  timing  of  this migration  is  not  known,  but estimates range from around 1000 B.C. (Moratto 1984) to 500 A.D. (Levy 1978).  

Spanish-colonial Period El Presidio de San Francisco was established in 1776 as the northernmost outpost of colonial New Spain to act as a defensive check against British, Russian, and French incursions into Alta California. El Presidio was the administrative center of a large colonial district stretching from the northern reaches of the San Francisco  Bay,  eastward  into  the  Central  Valley  of  California  and  south  along  the  Pacific  coast  to Monterey Bay.    It was responsible  for  the defense of six missions,  two civil communities, military and mission ranches, agricultural outposts, and land‐grant ranchos.   The  Presidio’s  population  was  recruited  from  Mexico,  predominately  from  the  western  regions  of Sinaloa and Sonora. Soldiers with families were the premium recruits, consequently women and children comprised  the majority  of  the  colonial  party. Many  of  these  families  inherited  centuries  of mixed ancestry  and  belonged  to  castas  [racial/ethnic  classes]  including  español, mestizo,  indio,  or mulatto according to a 1790 census.  Eventually, the castas system was replaced with a basic two class society of gente de razón [literally people of reason] and California Indians. Numbering less than 200, the colonial party  would  not  meet  the  ethnographic  criteria  for  a  ‘large  village’  in  the  area,  yet  the  soldiers dominated  the  region,  through  fear,  firepower, and bloodshed. By 1810  there would be over 11,000 native people representing 45 tribes from the region converted by the missionaries.   When colonists  first arrived  they  laid out a  fortified quadrangle measuring approximately 90 varas  [1 vara ~ 33  in.] on each side.   The early histories describe dilapidated structures,  inadequate materials, and the lack of skilled labor. Earthquakes and winter storms off the Pacific exacerbated these problems and debilitated the adobe walls yearly. In 1792 British Captain George Vancouver visited and noted that the Presidio was “ill accorded with the  ideas we had conceived of the sumptuous manner in which the Spaniards live on this side of the globe.” Within the same year Presidio Commandant Hermenegildo Sal submitted  a  report  documenting  the  decrepit  situation  and  indicted  the  negligence  of  government officials. He  concludes with:  “All  this  that  I manifest and expose  is notorious and  therefore  I  sign  it.”  Submitted  with  Sal’s  diatribe  was  a  plan  drawing  of  the  Presidio  showing  only  three  of  the  four defensive walls standing.   

Mexican War of Independence and Mexican Period Conditions  improved,  and  eventually  a  major  reconstruction  effort  was  mounted  in  response  to significant earthquakes in 1808 and 1812, the new Russian presence 60 miles north at Fort Ross, and the growing  populations’  desire  for  better  accommodations.  Regular  supply  ships  from  Mexico  were interrupted during the ongoing War of Independence (1810‐1821), and the colonial population became more  economically  autonomous.  Foreign  ships  more  often  stopped  in  San  Francisco  Bay,  gaining 

6 

entrance by passing the strategically placed Presidio. Many captains sought to engage the Presidio and associated missions  in  trade  to provision  their  ships,  a  common but nonetheless  illicit  activity under Spain’s rule.   The  strategic  importance  of  the  Presidio  declined  during  the  Mexican  Republican  era.  Eventually, Mariano Vallejo moved  the  garrison  to  Sonoma  in 1835  to be  closer  to  the Russians  at  Fort Ross. A detachment of artillerymen, led by a succession of acting commanders, were left to man the post. When the US Army arrived in 1846, they found the main quadrangle of El Presidio effectively abandoned and partially ruined.   

American Era After  the Army arrived  to  take possession of  the Presidio  following  the Mexican‐ American War,  they repurposed some of the adobe structures on El Presidio but made very few  improvements to the Post until  the Civil War. The Army’s  first  investments  in Tennessee Hollow  appear  to have been  to  try  to capture some of the abundant water through a series of dams and later pipes.  

 

By  the  1880s,  the  Army  had  begun  to  implement  a  post  beautification  program  that  included  the 

planting of a post  forest plantation. Tennessee Hollow was one of  the  first planting  locations  for  the 

forest that would eventually be established across the Presidio. The YMCA Reach project area appears 

heavily forested on late 19th and early 20th century maps.   

 

Toward the end of the 19th century, the Tennessee Hollow area was used as a camp by volunteer troops 

preparing to ship off to the Philippines. The watershed takes its name from the 1st Tennessee Volunteer 

Infantry, a group of soldiers who located there after being moved from Camp Merritt in May 1898. This 

camp,  together with an encampment  to  the east previously known as Camp Miller, was  called Camp 

Merriam. The Tennessee Volunteers remained there until October 1898 (Thompson 1997:322‐323).  

 

The first building in the YMCA Reach Project Area was the (now demolished) YMCA building, which was 

built  in 1918 on  Lincoln Blvd,  closer  to MacArthur Blvd. The area now  referred  to as  the  ‘dust bowl’ 

appears  in  mid‐20th  century  maps  as  the  parking  lot  for  this  former  YMCA.  The  old  YMCA  was 

demolished and the current YMCA constructed  in the early 1970s.   The pavement of the former YMCA 

parking lot maintained and used for overflow parking until the early 2000s, when it was repurposed as 

staging  and  dirt  stockpile  area  during  construction  of  the  Letterman  Digital  Arts  Center.  This  use 

continues.   

  

IV. PREDICTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREAS The Presidio of San Francisco was found to be of national significance and designated a National Historic Landmark  in  1962.  The  Presidio’s  Landmark  status  was  updated  in  1993  to  include  many  historic properties  from  the  U.S.  Army‐occupation  period  and was  expanded  to  become  a  National  Historic Landmark  District  (NHLD)  (Alley  et  al.  1993).  The  1993  NHLD  update  identified  51  historic‐era archaeological resources as contributing elements to the District. The period of significance for historic‐ era archaeological  resources within  the Presidio NHLD was determined  to be primarily  from 1776  to 1890, although it was also recognized that under certain circumstances the period of significance could extend to 1917. There are no known contributing areas of the Presidio NHLD in the YMCA Reach project area but if any historic archaeological resources within the period of significance are located they would require evaluation for  inclusion  in the NHLD. The Presidio Archaeology Lab  is completing an update of 

7 

the  NHLD  documentation,  which  is  currently  in  draft  form  (Presidio  Trust  n.d.).  This  draft  update includes an attempt to predict the  location of historical resources with greater accuracy and to model the  potential  for  prehistoric  habitation/use  across  the  Presidio.  Areas  of  predicted  prehistoric archaeological  sensitivity  are  predicted  on  the  basis  of  a GIS model  of  known  predictors  of Ohlone settlements in the Bay Area including slope, exposure, and proximity to water.  The Project Area, which is  relatively  flat  and directly  adjacent  to  a perennial water  source, was  predicted  to be  sensitive  for prehistoric archaeological deposits based on this analysis (Barnaal and Blind 2008).  

Prehistoric Archaeological Sensitivity and Previous Archaeological Research Two archaeological sites, CA‐SFR‐6/26 and CA‐SFR‐126, have been  identified at Crissy Field Marsh  into which the Tennessee Hollow Watershed drains. It  is thought that CA‐SFR‐129 (ca. 1300‐1780s AD) may represent the ethnohistoric village of Petlenuc, which is associated with the local Yelamu   Ohlone tribe that  inhabited the northern end of the San Francisco peninsula at Spanish arrival (Milliken 1995).   CA‐SFR‐6/26 appears to be an earlier phase of indigenous occupation (ca. 750‐1350 AD) located very close to CA‐SFR‐129 and also on the bayshore estuary (Jones and Stokes 2002).   Extensive  archaeological  testing  conducted  at  El Polín  Spring has not  revealed evidence  a prehistoric Ohlone archaeological site, although there is evidence that Native Californians lived at the spring during the historic period. (Hull and Voss 2012; Meyer 2011; Walker 2011; Walker and Meyer 2011; Voss 1999, 2005:  Voss et al. 2012). The local Yelamu would have certainly been familiar with this freshwater spring before  Spanish  arrival,  but  their  use  may  not  have  left  durable  archaeological  traces.  Recent archaeological  identification  testing at MacArthur Meadow, directly upstream  from YMCA Reach and downstream of El Polín, also failed to uncover evidence of a prehistoric Ohlone archaeological deposit (Jones n.d.).   Before Spanish colonization of  the San Francisco Bay area,  the YMCA Reach area could have been an important location for multiple Ohlone activities including gathering reeds and rushes, and hunting and trapping waterfowl. While  no  evidence  of  prehistoric  archaeological  deposits  has  been  found  in  the Tennessee Hollow Watershed, the location of YMCA Reach between the two known archaeological sites (CA‐SFR‐6/26 and CA‐SFR‐129) and a perennial source of fresh water (El Polín Spring) suggest a very high likelihood  of  Ohlone  use  and  familiarity with  the  site. Whether  there  is  archaeological  evidence  of Ohlone activities remains to be tested.   

V. RESEARCH ISSUES AND EXPECTATIONS  

Ohlone Life Understanding of Ohlone culture  in  the San Francisco Bay area comes primarily  from  two  sources: 1) 

ethnohistorical  information gathered after Spanish‐Colonial arrival and used  to  reconstruct  traditional 

cultural mores and 2) evidence recovered  from archaeological sites and  interpreted with reference  to 

known  ethnohistorical  information.  Early  ethnohistorical  descriptions  of  the  Ohlone  focused  on 

traditional  categories of anthropological  interest  including  kinship,  language,  religion, and  technology 

(Levy  1978).   More  recently, Ohlone  descendants  and  scholars  have  collaborated  to  focus  on  issues 

relevant  to Ohlone  communities  (see  e.g.  Bean  1994;  Levanthal  et  al.  1994,  Yamane  2002).  Randall 

Milliken  (1995)  provides  the most  thorough  summary  of  ethnohistorical  research  as  he  charts  the 

transformation of Ohlone culture  in the wake of colonization. Milliken et al.  (2009) offer an outline of 

historic populations within  the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, of which  the Presidio  is a part, 

and trace the connections between living Ohlone with their ancestors. Malcolm Margolin’s (1978) broad 

8 

reconstruction  of  Ohlone  life,  written  for  a  popular  audience,  is  based  on  a  combination  of 

ethnohistorical and archaeological evidence, but has been criticized as overly speculative. 

 

Ohlone archaeological research got its start in San Francisco’s East Bay with the excavation of a of large 

shell mounds in the early 1900s (Lightfoot 1997; Nelson 1907, 1909, 1996). This research focused mainly 

on mapping  these  archaeological  sites  and  describing  their  contents. While  urban  development  has 

destroyed many  of  these mounds, many  lower mounds  and  submound  contexts  are  still  discovered 

during planning for development projects or inadvertently discovered during their construction. Recent 

archaeological  research  has  focused  on  refining  chronologies  to  determine  not  only  the  timing  of 

migration into the San Francisco Bay Area, but also how that relates to early chronologies developed for 

the Central Valley  (Lillard et al. 1939; Beardsley 1948) and  later  revisions  (Bennyhoff and Fredrickson 

1994;  Fredrickson  1994).  Beyond  chronology,  researchers  have  been  interested  in  understanding 

cultural  change,  especially  as  it  relates  to  the  subsistence  and  settlement  practices  of  the  complex 

hunter‐gatherers who made the Bay Area their home (see Erlandson and Jones 2003; Broughton 1999; 

Jones 1992).   Archaeological research on the San Francisco Peninsula has been  less  intense than  in the East Bay not only because rapid urban development after the Gold Rush (1849) may have destroyed many prehistoric archaeological sites but also because the peninsula may have few archaeological sites due to  its  lower population densities.   Milliken (1995: 20) estimates   that population density at the tip of the peninsula was as  low as  two people per  square mile, whereas East Bay densities were as much as  three  times higher at 6 people per square mile.  The Crissy Field archaeological sites, for example, are much smaller than  East  Bay  shellmound  sites,  which  may  reflect  a  smaller  population  due  to  a  less  productive environment  and  often  inhospitable  conditions  at  the  tip  of  the  peninsula, where wind  and  fog  are common.   The YMCA Reach area  is a relatively more sheltered area than the exposed bayshore estuary at Crissy Field.  If  there  is  a  buried  prehistoric  archaeological  deposit  in  this  area,  it  has  potential  to  inform  a number of research questions that have been difficult to answer on the San Francisco Peninsula due to the relative paucity of archaeological sites.   

Chronological Research Questions What is the temporal range of habitation or use of the area?    

 

Is there a single component or were there discrete periods of site use? 

 

Was YMCA Reach inhabited at the same time as the Crissy Field sites? Earlier? Later? Is there evidence 

of the timing of migration into what is now the Presidio?   

Data requirements 

Secure buried archaeological contexts with artifacts and ecofacts that can be subject to chronometric dating (e.g. antler, ash, bone, and charcoal)   

Temporally diagnostic  artifacts  (e.g.  certain projectile points, milling  technology,  shell beads) in stratigraphically secure contexts.   

9 

Obsidian  artifacts  amenable  to  obsidian  hydration;  preferably  paired with  C14  dates  from the same context to refine the hydration curve for the Presidio 

 

Subsistence and Settlement Research Questions What resources were exploited at YMCA Reach? Are these similar to the Crissy Field sites?  

 

How does a MacArthur Meadow site fit into the collecting pattern more broadly? How might it relate to 

the Crissy Field sites? Peninsula sites more broadly?  

 

Is there evidence of seasonality or was the site occupied year‐round?  

 Data requirements 

Secure archaeological contexts with floral and/or faunal remains 

 

Secure  contexts with  artifacts  indicative of  subsistence  practice  and  intensity  (milling 

tools, flake stone tool types, fishing weights and other equipment) 

 

Excavation of archaeological samples sufficient to allow comparison with CA‐SFR‐6 and 

CA‐SFR‐129 at Crissy Field and sites within San Francisco more broadly.  

 

Trade and Exchange Research Questions Are non‐local resources present? What types are they and can their sources be identified?   Is there evidence of manufacture of items for trade?  

 

How  does  evidence  of  trade  or  exchange  here  compare  with  other  sites?  Is  there  evidence  that 

materials at  this  site are not present at others or vice versa? Are  there connections  to  specific other 

sites?  

 

Do trade items present correspond to known trade networks? Did the items make their way directly to 

the Presidio or did they go down‐the‐line or through other arrangements?  

 Data requirements 

Presence of non‐local resources, preferably those that can be traced to their source 

 

Work  areas with waste  and  tools  from manufacturing  goods  (flaked  stone  reduction,  

drills  for  shell  bead  manufacture,  bone  tool  processing  debris,  and  rejected  or 

unfinished blanks for any potential trade item) 

 

Social Organization Research Questions Is there evidence of social stratification on the basis of age, gender, or other axes of identity?  

 

Do certain individuals have differential access to resources?  

 

Are there other signs of cultural complexity, including intensification of production or division of tasks?  

 

10 

Data requirements   

Archaeological site with a broad enough horizontal extent to compare distinct features 

and contexts 

 

Secure contexts with utilitarian and prestige items represented 

 

 

Plant Succession and Landscape Change An  important  area  of  research  in  archaeology  is  the  reconstruction  of  prehistoric  and  historical 

environment and  landscape change, both natural and human‐caused, and cultural  responses  to  these 

processes (Butzer 1982; Crumley 1994; Dincauze 1987). Environmental reconstruction, plant succession, 

and  landscape  change  are  understood  at  multiple  overlapping  temporal  and  spatial  scales  and 

archaeological  deposits  are  only  one  of  the  many  lines  of  evidence  that  scholars  draw  upon  to 

understand  these  complicated  processes.  Potential  lines  of  evidence  include,  but  are  not  limited  to, 

ethnography,  oral  histories,  historical  documents,  pollen  (palynology),  phytoliths,  macroscopic 

ethnobotanicals, stratigraphy, geomorphology, pedology, settlement patterns, and material culture.  

 

Changing  regional  settlement  environments  have  been  reconstructed  through  palynology.  Duncan 

(1992), for example, used surface sampling and deep pollen cores to examine regional landscape change 

during  initial  contact  between  the Miwok  and  explores  and  colonists  (1579‐1817)  in Marin  County. 

Drawing  from  her  efforts  to  integrate  pollen  data with  the  archaeological  and  ethnographic  record, 

Duncan (1992: 358) urges archaeologists to pay more careful attention to environmental sampling at the 

site level while cautioning that drawing conclusions from regional data can be misleading due to varying 

rates of  change.    She  argues, however,  that  the period  “might be better defined  in ecological  terms 

rather than purely material or ethnographic definitions” (Duncan 1992:17).    

 

At  the  Presidio,  Liam  Reidy  (2001)  collected  and  analyzed  soil  cores  taken  from Mountain  Lake  to 

develop an ecological history of the area over the 2000‐year record represented  in the  lake. Together, 

radiocarbon  dating,  pollen  analysis,  geochemical  analysis,  and  physical  stratigraphy  of  the  cores 

revealed  that  the  early  lake  environs were  dominated  by  certain  species  (wax myrtle, willows,  tule, 

native grasses, and  chenopods) but  that Spanish‐colonization brought  rapid environmental  change  to 

not  only  the  local  environment  but  also  the  full  pollen  catchment  area.  Specifically,  cattle  grazing 

appeared to rapidly change the vegetation surrounding the  lake and an  increase  in non‐native grasses 

associated with grazing (e.g. erodium) was almost  immediate. Willows and sagebrush rapidly declined, 

likely as a result of Spanish‐colonial harvesting  for  fuel and clearing  for grazing.    In summer 2012, the 

Presidio Archaeology Lab, in partnership with the National Lacustrine Core Facility (LacCore) followed up 

on this research with new cores in Mountain Lake intended to address questions related to the temporal 

and  geographic  scale  of  the  changes  noted  by  Reidy.    Of  specific  interest  is  defining  the  pollen 

catchment areas  to better understand  regional versus  local environmental change. Understanding  fire 

history and California  Indian  landscape management practices  is also a goal of  the  renewed  research. 

Core analysis is currently underway.  

 

James West (1989) has drawn together multiple lines of evidence collected by several scholars, including 

microbotanicals  (pollen,  phytoliths)  and macrobotanicals  (charred  seeds  and wood),  to  assess  plant 

succession  and  environmental  change  across  Alta  California  before,  during,  and  after  Spanish 

colonization. While  he  cautions  that  the  evidence  is  fragmentary  and  often  contradictory,  he  draws 

11 

several tentative conclusions including: adobe bricks and coprolites provide the best data for historic‐era 

studies; pollen evidence  suggests  that  livestock grazing had a devastating effect on native plants and 

encouraged  rapid  replacement  by  exotics;  and  dendrochronological  fire  scars,  macrobotanicals  in 

sediments  and  in  archaeological deposits  combine  to  suggest  that  fire  regimes  changed  substantially 

from prehistory through colonization (West 1989: 343).  

 

Fire history has been an intense focus of interest for an interdisciplinary team of researchers interested 

in the active management of landscapes by Native Californians before colonization and the disruption of 

indigenous lifeways caused by Spanish‐colonial rules restricting burning (Cuthrell et. al. 2009; Cuthrell et 

al. 2012; Lightfoot et al. 2008).  Data analyzed includes pollen, phytoliths, dendrochronlogical fire scars, 

and ethnobotanical  remains both on and off  the archaeological  site  (CA‐SMA‐113)  thought  to be  the 

remains of the western San Francisco Peninsula Ohlone village that was visited by the Portolá party  in 

1769 (Cuthrell et al. 2012: 161). This collaborative research between California Indians, archaeologists, 

and California State Parks seeks to guide future landscape management decisions by using an evidence‐

based  approach  to  reintroduce  elements  of  local  knowledge  and  traditional  Indian  landscape 

management practices as part of a ‘cultural preserve’ (Cuthrell, Striplen, and Lightfoot 2009:27).  

 

 

Research Questions What was  the pre‐Spanish Presidio environment? What were  the groundcover and other  flora  in  the area before the arrival of Spanish colonists? 

 

How did Native Californians use and modify the local environment?   How was  the  natural  environment  affected  by  initial  settlement? What  cultural  responses  to  these changes occurred among the Ohlone?   What was the  impact of non‐native  floral and  faunal species on native species? Specifically, what was the impact of grazing?   What were the pollen signatures of the Spanish colonial/Mexican Presidio environment pre‐ and post‐settlement? What evidence is there of floral species succession? 

 

How  did  the  modified  environment  in  the  Spanish  Presidio  vicinity  compare  with  that  of  nearby 

contemporary Ohlone villages?   Data Requirements 

Paleosols   

Preservation of floral remains including micro and macro botanicals  

Local terrestrial pollen remains from deposits with stratigraphic integrity  

Evidence of historic‐era landscape modification (grading cuts, fills, garden terracing)  

Evidence of prehistoric landscape management practices (burning episodes) 

12 

VI. WORK PLAN Archaeological  testing will be  completed by Presidio Archaeology  Lab  staff with  the aid of a backhoe 

operated by Presidio Trust Roads and Grounds staff. Field work will be completed in February 2013 and 

is expected to take a minimum of one week and a maximum of two weeks. Four archaeological trench 

locations have been selected based on the depth of proposed project disturbance below native ground 

surface and probable locations of prehistoric habitation and use. Mechanical trenching is designed to:  

 

identify the presence or absence of archaeological deposits  

 

determine the vertical extent (depth) of cultural deposits 

 

determine horizontal extents (boundaries) of cultural deposits 

 

provide preliminary  information on the stratigraphic history of the area  including historic 

cuts and/or fills that may affect the potential for intact archaeological deposits 

 

identify deep deposits including buried archaeological materials and potential paleosols  

expose broad areas, if necessary, to identify specific features or feature clusters 

 

 

Individual trench locations are illustrated on Figure 3 and summarized below.  

 

Trench  1‐  is  situated  in  the  southern  extents  of  proposed  grading  for  the wetland  creation  project. 

Inspection  of  historic maps  indicates  this  area  was  directly  adjacent  to  the  stream  course  for  the 

Tennessee Hollow drainage and was relatively flat. Prehistoric sensitivity of this area is high. Trench 1 is 

proposed to be 10 meters long and cross‐cut the natural stratigraphy of the area.  

 

Trench 2‐ is located just north and east of Trench 1 and was historically just upslope from the Tennessee 

Hollow drainage. Proposed wetland creation disturbance in this area is deeper (4‐5 feet) than in Trench 

1 and this trench is placed to test the maximum vertical extent of impact in this area. The trench will be 

5 meters long.  

 

Trench 3‐  is  located perpendicular to  the historic slope as  it grades up and to the southeast.  It  is also 

within the area of deepest impact in the southern project area. The trench will be 10 meters long.  

 

Trench 4‐ is the only planned trench within the northern area of grading. Historically this area was a flat 

just  to  the west of a steeper slope  to  the northeast. This area would have provided shelter and good 

exposure  for  prehistoric  habitation.  Because  several  factors  (major  utility  disturbance  and  modern 

obstructiosn)  prevent  excavation  in  the  historic  flats  closer  to  the  Tennessee  Hollow  drainage,  this 

trench  is  intended  to capture any  remaining archaeological evidence of habitation  in  this ecologically 

attractive area.  This trench will be 10 meters long and crosscut the landform.  

 

Trench 2

Trench 3

Trench 4

Trench 1

Sheet No.

By:

Scale:

Date:

Figure 3: Archaeological Trenches

1 of 1

Hans Barnaal

03/06/2013

1 inch = 50 feet

0 5025

Feet

1:600Absolute Scale:

GRID

Archaeological Trench Locations

14 

 

Mechanical trenches will be oriented to the El Presidio archaeological grid. Excavation will proceed with 

a backhoe with a 36‐inch bucket with a toothed‐blade. At least one archaeologist will be present during 

all excavation and the backhoe operator will work at her direction. Excavation will be guided by natural 

and  cultural  stratigraphy  and a  stratigraphic matrix of deposits will be  completed along with  context 

records for each stratigraphic context noted during excavation.  Excavation will continue until culturally 

sterile soils are encountered or to a maximum depth of 5 feet to allow safe entry into trenches. If intact 

cultural deposits are identified, backhoe excavation will be terminated and the deposits will be recorded 

and  reburied  for  future exploration.  Spot  screening of deposits will be practiced  to ensure  that  low‐

density deposits are not overlooked. Only  temporally or cultural diagnostic artifacts will be collected. 

Archival soil samples will be taken as necessary and retained for future analysis. The base of excavation 

will be covered in landscape fabric and the excavated soil will be used for backfilling.  

 

Additional excavation, if necessary, will be based on the findings in the initial trenches and may include a 

variety  of  unit  types  and  sizes  sufficient  to  characterize  the  archaeological  integrity  of  the  area. 

Placement of additional excavation units will be  referenced  the El Presidio archaeological  grid where 

feasible.    

 

The AIP and its results should further help guide project design for the YMCA Reach Project to help avoid 

impacts  to  archaeological  resources.  Following  the  completion  of  the  AIP  and  the  issuance  of 

construction drawings, a project‐specific Archaeological Monitoring Plan  (AMP) may also be necessary 

to ensure that the project avoids adverse effects to archaeological resources during construction.    

VII. CURATION All archaeological materials  (“the collection”) generated by  this project, with  the exception of human 

remains and materials  subject  to NAGPRA, will  remain  the property of  the Presidio Trust. Per 36 CFR 

Part 79.4(a),  the  collection  includes  archaeological  artifacts,  samples,  and  associated documentation. 

Associated  documentation may  include,  but  is  not  limited  to,  field,  lab  and  administrative  records, 

reports,  photographs  and  slides,  digital  media  and  records,  correspondence,  and  other  project 

documentation. In the event that no archaeological artifacts are recovered during investigations, project 

records alone constitute a collection.  

 

The collection is curated by the Presidio Trust on‐site in the Presidio Archaeology Lab’s secure, climate‐

controlled curation facility. Collections are curated in compliance with 36 CFR Part 79 and in accordance 

with  the Presidio Trust’s Archaeological Collections Policy and Archaeological Collections Management 

Guidelines  (Presidio  Trust  2011,  2012).  Information  about  the  collections  is  accessible  through  the 

Re:discovery archaeology and collections management database.  

 

VIII. HUMAN REMAINS Human  remains  are  not  considered  as  research  objects  by  the  Presidio  Archaeology  Lab  and  this 

research design does not include study of human remains as a goal. The Lab follows all applicable laws 

concerning  the  proper  treatment  of  human  remains  on  Federal  lands  including  the Native American 

Graves Protection Act (NAGPRA) 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq. and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

(ARPA) 16 U.S.C. 470 aa‐mm.   

15 

Human  remains and  funerary objects potentially present  in  the project area will not be  intentionally excavated  or  knowingly  disturbed.  If  human  remains,  funerary  objects,  sacred  objects,  or  objects  of cultural patrimony are  inadvertently discovered during any phase of the project they will be protected in place and avoided by all project activities.  Ground disturbing work  in  the vicinity of  the  find will immediately cease and the Presidio Trust Principal Archaeologist will be contacted. Presidio Archaeology Lab staff will notify the Presidio Trust’s Federal Preservation Officer. If necessary, the Presidio Trust will notify the San Francisco Medical Examiner of the discovey.   The  immediate protection of human  remains at  the  site  shall be accomplished by  (1) keeping any discovery confidential, and (2) securing the  location to prevent disturbance of the remains and any associated materials.    The Presidio Trust shall determine whether the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) applies to the discovery and will ensure that the finds are treated in compliance with all  requirements outlined at 43 CFR 10.4. Any materials not  subject  to NAGPRA will  remain under Federal control.    The Presidio Trust archaeologist  shall determine whether  the human  remains are a  single  isolated burial or are potentially part of a cemetery or a  larger archaeological site. This may necessitate the involvement of a consulting physical anthropologist. Articulated human remains, either as part of a single burial or larger cemetery, will be protected in place and avoided by all project activities. This may involve abandonment or redesign of the project.   If  the  discovery  is  limited  to  disarticulated  human  remains,  the  Presidio  Trust  archaeologist  or  a consulting physical anthropologist will direct necessary collection efforts. Further  identification work may be necessary  to determine  the  frequency of disarticulated human  remains  in  the project area, and to determine an appropriate course of action. Any disarticulated remains collected from the site will be stored in archival boxes in a secure location until appropriate re‐interment can take place. No human remains will be accessioned into the Presidio Trust Archaeological Collections.  

 

16 

IV. REFERENCES  Alley, P., L. R. Barker, G. Chappell, C. Feierabend, J. P. Langellier, D. Quitevis and S. A. Dean 1993  Presidio of San Francisco National Register of Historic Places Registration Forms. Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area. National Park Service, San Francisco.  Bean, L. (editor) 1994   The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region. Ballena Press, Novato, 

CA.  Beardsley, R.  1948  Cultural Sequences in Central California Archaeology. American Antiquity 14(1): 1‐28.  1954   Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archaeology. Reports of the University of California 

Archaeological Survey 24‐25. Berkeley, California.  Bennyhoff, J., and D. Fredrickson  1994  A Proposed Integrative Taxonomic System for Central California Archaeology. In Toward a New Taxonomic 

Framework  for Central California Archaeology: Essays by  James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, assembled  and  edited  by  Richard  E.  Hughes,  pp.  15‐24.  Contributions  of  the  University  of  California Archaeological Research Facility 52. Berkeley. 

 Blind, E. and H. Barnaal  2008  Presidio  Elevation  Change Model  1871‐2000.  On  file  at  the  Presidio  Archaeology  Lab,  San  Francisco, 

California.  Blind, E, S. Kenton Osborn, B. Voss, and L. Clevenger 2008    The Presidio of San Francisco  in Archaeology  in America: An Encyclopedia. Edited by F. Mc Manamon, L. 

Cordell, K. Lightfoot, and G. Milner.  Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport CT.  Broughton, J.  1999    Resource Depression and  Intensification during  the Lat Holocene, San Francisco Bay: Evidence  from  the 

Emeryville Shellmound Vertebrate Fauna. University of California Anthropological Records 32. Berkeley.   Butzer, K.  1982   Archaeology  as Human  Ecology: Method  and  Theory  for  a  Contextual Approach. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge UK.   Crumley, C. (editor) 1994    Historical  Ecology:  Cultural  Knowledge  and  Changing  Landscapes.  School  of  American  Research  Press, 

Santa Fe, New Mexico.   Cuthrell, R., C. Striplen, and K. Lightfoot  2009    Exploring  Indigenous  Landscape Management  at Quiroste  Valley,  The  Archaeological  Approach.  News 

from  Native  California  22(3):26‐29   

Cuthrell, R, C. Striplen, M. Hylkema, and K. Lightfoot 2012   A  land  of  Fire:  Anthropogenic  Burning  on  the  Central  Coast  of  California  in  Contemporary  Issues  in 

California Archaeology Terry Jones and Jennifer Perry editors. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek CA  Dincauze, D.  1987  Dincauze, D.F. (1987) Strategies for Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction in Archaeology, In M.B. Schiffer, 

ed. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory , v. 11, Academic Press, New York, pp. 255‐336. 

17 

 Duncan, F.  1992  Botanical  Reflections  on  the  Encuentro  and  the  Contact  Period  in  Southern Marin  County,  California. 

Doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.   Erlandson, J., and T. L. Jones (editors)  2003   Catalysts  to  Complexity  :  The  Late  Holocene  on  the  California  Coast.  Perspectives  in  California 

Archaeology, vol. 6. Institute of Archaeology. University of California, Los Angeles  Fredrickson, D.  1994   Archaeological  Taxonomy  in  Central  California  Revisited.  In  Toward  a New  Taxonomic  Framework  for 

Central California Archaeology: Essays by  James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, assembled and edited  by  Richard  E.  Hughes,  pp.  91‐103.  Contributions  of  the  University  of  California  Archaeological Research Facility 52. Berkeley 

 Hull, K. and B. Voss 2012    Report on Analysis of Flaked and Ground Stone  Lithic Specimens  from  the Summer 2003 and Summer 

2004 Excavations and El Polín Spring, Presidio of San Francisco. On file at the Presidio Archaeology Lab, San Francisco, California. 

 Humphrey, C.F. 1880    Map of the Military Reservation of the Presidio. Map on file at the National Park Service GGNRA Archives.   Jones, T. (editor) 1992  Essays  on  the  Prehistory  of Maritime  California.  Center  for  Archaeological  Research  at  Davis  [CARD] 

Publications, 10. Davis, California.  Levanthal, A, , L. Field, H. Alverez, and R. Cambra,  1994  Back from Extinction. In The Ohlone: Past and Present Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region. 

L. J Bean editor, pp. 297‐336. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.   Levy, R.  1978   Costanoan. In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8 (California). Edited by W. Sturtevant, and R.F. 

Heizer, pp 485‐495. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.   

 Lightfoot, K., C. Striplen, and R Cuthrell 2008   The Collaborative Research Program at Quiroste Valley. News from Native California 22(2):30‐33  Lightfoot, K. 1997  Cultural Construction of Coastal Landscapes:   a Middle‐Holocene Perspective from San Francisco Bay.  In 

Archaeology  of  the  California  Coast  during  the Middle‐Holocene,  edited by.  J.A.  Erlandson  and M.A. Glassow, 129–142. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. 

 Lillard, J., R. Heizer, and F. Fenenga 1939  An  Introduction  to  the  Archaeology  of  Central  California.  Sacramento  Junior  College,  Department  of 

Anthropology Bulletin 2. Sacramento, California.   Margolin, M.  1978.   The Ohlone Way: Indian Life in the San Francisco and Monterey Bay Areas. Heyday Books, Berkeley, CA. 

 Meyer, M.  

18 

2011  El Polín Spring Archaeological Monititoring Results, Site Development and Habitat Improvements, Presidio of San Francisco. On file at the Presidio Archaeology Lab, San Francisco, California.  

 Milliken, R. 1995  A Time of Little Choice. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California. 

 Milliken, R. , L. Shoup, and B. Ortiz 2009  Ohlone/Costanoan  Indians  of  the  San  Francisco  Peninsula  and  their  Neighbors  Yesterday  and  Today. 

Manuscript prepared for the National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San Francisco, California.  

 Moratto, M.  1984  California Archaeology. Academic Press, San Francisco, California.  Nelson, N.  1907  San Francisco Bay Mounds University of California Archaeological Survey Manuscripts No. 349.  

Berkeley. 1909   Shellmounds  of  the  San  Francisco  Bay  Region.  University  of  California  Publications  in  American 

Archaeology and Ethnology 7:309‐356. 1996  [1906]  Excavation  of  the  Emeryville  Shellmound.  Contributions  of  the  Archaeological  Research  Facility 

Number 54. Report transcribed by J. Broughton, University of California, Berkeley.   Presidio Trust  n.d.   Draft 2008 NHLD Update. On file at the Presidio Archaeology Lab, San Francisco, California.  2007  Tennessee Hollow Upper Watershed Revitalization Project Environmental Assessment, August 2007. On 

file at the Presidio Archaeology Lab, San Francisco, California. 2011  Archaeological Collections Policy. On file at the Presidio Archaeology Lab, San Francisco, California.  2012  Archaeological Collections Management Guidelines. On file at the Presidio Archaeology Lab, San Francisco, 

California.   Thompson, E. 1997  Defender  of  the  Gate:  The  Presidio  of  San  Francisco,  a  History  from  1846  to  1995.  Produced  for  the 

National Park Service Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San Francisco, California.  Voss, B. 1999  Report on Archaeological Shovel Probe Survey at the Presidio of San Francisco, 1997‐1998. Archaeological 

Research Facility, University of California, Berkeley. Submitted to the National Park Service, Golden Gate National  Recreation  Area,  San  Francisco.  Document  on  file,  Presidio  Archaeology  Laboratory,  San Francisco, California. 

 2005     From  Casta  to  Californio:  Social  Identity  and  the  Archaeology  of  Culture  Contact.  American 

Anthropologist 107(3):461‐474.  Voss, B., with contributions by H. Blind, E. Clevenger, B. Cox, M. Kane, E. Simmons, and C. Smith‐Lintner 2010  Tennessee  Hollow  Watershed  Archaeology  Project,  Final  Report,  2005‐2010  Laboratory  Studies  on 

Collections from El Polín Springs, Presidio of San Francisco, California. On file at the Presidio Archaeology Lab, San Francisco, California. 

 Walker, M. 2011    Tennessee  Hollow  Upper  Watershed  Revitalization  Project:  Archaeological  Identification  at  El  Polín 

Springs.   

19 

Walker, M. and M. Meyer   2011    Tennessee Hollow Upper Watershed Revitalization Project: Archaeological Excavation of Feature 64.05, a 

Spanish‐Colonial/Mexican  Water  Containment  Feature  at  El  Polín  Spring.  On  file  at  the  Presidio Archaeology Lab, San Francisco.   

 West, A.  1989  Early  Historic  Vegetation  Change  in  Alta  California:  The  Fossil  Evidence.  In  Columbian  Consequences: 

Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands West, edited by D.H. Thomas, pp. 333‐348. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.  

 Yamane, L. (editor)  2002  A  Gathering  of  Voices;  The  Native  People  of  the  Central  California  Coast.  Santa  Cruz  County  History 

Journal, Issue 5; published by the Museum of Art & History, Santa Cruz, California.  

 

 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT BARNARD AVENUE PROTECTED RANGE (BAPR) REMEDIATION

Prepared by 

 

Kari Jones 

Presidio Archaeology Lab 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prepared for 

 

Genevieve Coyle 

Presidio Trust Remediation          

January 2013 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT

BARNARD AVENUE PROTECTED RANGE (BAPR) REMEDIATION  

 

I. Background In accordance with Stipulation XII Archaeology of  the  “Programmatic Agreement Among The Presidio 

Trust, National  Park  Service,  The Advisory Council On Historic  Preservation, And  The California  State 

Historic Preservation Officer Regarding The Presidio Of San Francisco, Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area” the treatment of archaeological properties shall be handled  in accordance with the  terms of an 

Archaeological  Management  Assessment  and  Monitoring  Program  (AMA/MP)  that  is  prepared  for 

individual undertakings or groups of related undertakings.   

 

II. Project Description The Project Area, the Barnard Avenue Protected Range (BAPR) covers an area approximately 20,900 square feet or 0.5 acre and is bounded by Barnard Avenue on the west, Fernandez Avenue to the north and open space on the east and south. The proposed remedial action for BAPR calls for surficial excavation ranging in depth from 0.5 to 1.5 feet below current ground surface. Over‐excavation will be conducted in areas where field soil sampling indicates that cleanup levels have not been achieved.  

 

III. Archaeological Context A small portion of the proposed remediation area  is within the predicted extents of El Presidio de San 

Francisco,  a  contributing  archaeological  area  of  the  Presidio National Historic  Landmark District  (see 

Figure 1).  

El Presidio de San Francisco El Presidio de San Francisco was initially settled in 1776. The post was situated at the northernmost edge of  Spain’s  North  American  colonies,  and  was  integral  to  Spanish  efforts  to  consolidate  power  and expand control over the region. The main quadrangle served as the center of military affairs, as well as religious and  family  life, during  the Spanish and Mexican colonial periods.  It was home  to a cluster of buildings around a central place that provided space for settlers and soldiers to worship, process food, build  and  repair  the  many  items  necessary  to  sustain  the  community,  as  well  as  perform  the administrative  tasks  required  of  the  post.  While  the  general  layout  of  the  quadrangle  remained consistent over time, its dimensions and method of construction varied with each building phase. After the conclusion of the Mexican‐American War, in early 1847, General Kearny ordered the regular Army to occupy El Presidio. The  soldiers  renovated and  settled  in  the existing adobe  structures  in addition  to constructing new buildings. Over  several decades,  they eventually expanded  the post northward and westward to create the Main Post. 

 

Significance: NHL/NRHP criteria 1/A Historical Events and 6/D Information Potential El  Presidio  is  a  unique  archaeological  resource with  the  potential  to  examine  all  phases  of  Presidio occupation including Spanish‐Colonial, Mexican and American. Research at El Presidio will contribute to: reconstructing  the  processes  by which  the  Spanish  El  Presidio  site was  structured;  documenting  the 

 

designs  and  technologies  used;  understanding  the  Native  American  involvement  with  the  Spanish colonial/Mexican Presidio; documenting working conditions and  the daily use of space; reconstructing dietary patterns; understanding the development of community and identity including the dynamics of class, ethnicity, and gender; and the role of material culture and consumerism in the contexts of military institutions. 

 

Integrity: Variable Archaeological investigations have demonstrated the high integrity of archaeological deposits associated with  the  Spanish  and Mexican  colonial  periods.  In  particular,  architectural  remains  of  the  presumed 1815 reconstruction and expansion of the El Presidio quadrangle and associated structures have yielded thousands  of  archaeological  artifacts  and  features.  Some  portions  of  the  broader  El  Presidio  site, however,  are  not  yet  known  and  still  others  have  been  destroyed  during  historic  and  modern construction  episodes.  The  current project  area has not been  subject  to  archaeological  identification testing,  but monitoring  in  adjacent  areas  (Ballard  2012)  has  not  located  any  deposits with  physical integrity.  

 

IV. Assessment The proposed remediation of the BAPR will be completed through shallow excavation of contaminated 

soils.  A portion of the proposed remedial excavation is within the predicted extents of El Presidio de San 

Francisco, which has been encountered at depths as shallow as 6  inches below ground surface. While 

the Presidio Elevation Change Model  (Blind and Barnaal 2008) suggests that 5‐10 feet of post‐1871 fill 

may cover the area, neither archaeological monitoring of construction of the directly adjacent Building 

42  rain  garden  (Ballard  2012) nor  initial  site  characterization  coring  (Geosyntec  2012)  confirmed  the 

presence of fill. The absence of fill suggests that any remains associated with El Presidio would be close 

to current ground surface. Monitoring of excavation in the directly adjacent rain garden did not result in 

the  discovery  of  any  archaeological material,  however  (Ballard  2012).  There  is,  therefore,  a  low  to 

moderate  potential  to  encounter  archaeological  remains  in  the  proposed  remedial  area.    Excavation 

within  the predicted extents of El Presidio, as shown on Figure 1, should be monitored by a qualified 

archaeologist  to  aid  in  identification  of  deposits,  if  present.  In  areas  outside  of  El  Presidio,  the 

inadvertent discovery protocols outlined in Section V should be followed.  

 

V. Inadvertent Discovery Protocols An inadvertent discovery refers to any situation where previously unidentified archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during ground‐disturbing activities. Inadvertent discovery protocols apply  to  those  archaeological  finds  that  are  exposed  during  construction  or  construction‐related activities whether an archaeologist is present or not.   There are three types of inadvertent discoveries that are covered by this monitoring plan:  

Human remains. 

Cultural resources that are significant or have the potential to be significant. 

Cultural resources that a qualified archaeologist determines do not require further consideration. 

If  any  of  these  three  types  is  inadvertently  discovered  during  construction,  the  contractor  and archaeological monitor should follow the steps outlined below: 

 

All contractors will immediately report to the archaeological monitor if archaeological materials are uncovered during construction activities. 

Operations within the vicinity of the find should be temporarily halted until the archaeological monitor is consulted.   

In the majority of cases the archaeological monitor should be able to make a determination of significance for the find.  

If a clear significance determination  is not possible, the Presidio Trust Archaeologist should be consulted.  

All materials, whether determined significant or not, are property of the Presidio Trust and are not to be taken for personal use or display.   

Archaeological  resources  include  stone,  brick,  and  concrete  building  foundations,  isolated  historic artifacts, historic landfill deposits, historic privy pits and household waste deposits, and items of Native American derivation such as stone tools, shell and animal bone waste, shell beads, and habitation areas.  A more detailed list follows: 

Human remains; 

Concentrations of rock, ash, animal bone or shell; 

Earth containing a dark, almost black or very dark brown soil often containing charcoal; 

Easily crumbled dark gray‐brown soil with abundant shell fragments, animal bone, charcoal and artifacts such as shell beads, mortars, pestles, arrowheads, bone tools, etc.; 

Concentrations of artifacts such as stone bowls, arrowheads, bone tools, shell beads, etc.; 

Deposits containing large amounts of shell;  

Deposits containing glass bottles, metal, old cans or other obvious trash dumps (Note: single bottles, modern aluminum cans or beer bottles are not considered significant finds); 

Foundations (stone, concrete, brick or wood); 

Wells (outline, brick or wood lined);  

Trash dumps containing food debris (e.g. cut bone, seeds, pits); and, 

Adobe (unfired or fired) clay bricks.  Other materials  that  do  not  qualify  as  archaeological  resources might  also  be  encountered.    These include: modern subsurface utilities such as water or sewer  lines, materials manufactured after 1950, and small concentrations of broken concrete, broken asphalt, and/or unmarked, unmortared bricks that have been deposited as fill, if no other cultural materials are present.  

Human remains 

Project‐related  ground‐disturbing  activities  have  been  designed  to  avoid  human  remains.  If  human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony are inadvertently discovered they shall be protected  in place and avoided by all project activities.  Ground disturbing work  in  the vicinity of  the  find must  immediately  cease  and  the  Presidio  Trust  archaeologist must be  contacted. Presidio Archaeology Lab staff will notify the Presidio Trust’s Federal Preservation Officer. If necessary, the Presidio Trust will notify the San Francisco Medical Examiner of the inadvertent discovery of human remains.  

 The  immediate protection of human  remains at  the  site  shall be accomplished by  (1) keeping any discovery confidential, and (2) securing the  location to prevent disturbance of the remains and any associated materials.   

 The Presidio Trust archaeologist shall determine whether the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation  Act  (NAGPRA)  applies  to  the  discovery  and will  ensure  that  the  finds  are  treated  in compliance with all requirements outlined at 43 CFR 10.4. Any materials not subject to NAGPRA will remain under Federal control.    The Presidio Trust archaeologist  shall determine whether  the human  remains are a  single  isolated burial or are potentially part of a cemetery or a  larger archaeological site. This may necessitate the involvement of a consulting physical anthropologist. Articulated human remains, either as part of a single burial or larger cemetery, will be protected in place and avoided by all project activities. This may involve abandonment or redesign of the project.   If  the  discovery  is  limited  to  disarticulated  human  remains,  the  Presidio  Trust  archaeologist  or  a consulting physical anthropologist will direct necessary collection efforts. Further  identification work may be necessary to determine the frequency of disarticulated human remains in the project area and to determine an appropriate course of action. Any disarticulated remains collected from the site will be  stored  in  archival  boxes  in  a  secure  location  until  appropriate  re‐interment  can  take  place. No human remains will be accessioned into the Presidio Trust Archaeological Collections.   

V. Contact Information In the event of a discovery that requires a significance determination  in consultation with the Presidio 

Archaeology  Lab,  Kari  Jones,  the  designated  project manager  for  archaeology,  should  be  contacted. 

Most other inquires can also be directed to Ms. Jones. Liz Clevenger, Curator of Archaeology, should be 

contacted for information relating to the collection and/or discard of archaeological materials.  

Hans  Barnaal,  GIS  Specialist,  can  be  contacted  for  GIS  or  mapping  assistance.  Eric  Blind,  Principal 

Archaeologist,  should  be  contacted  in  the  event  that  any  of  the  aforementioned  staff members  are 

unavailable.  

Name  Office phone  Mobile phone  Email 

(415) 561‐   

Eric Blind 

Principal 

Archaeologist 

5091  850‐5166  eblind@presidiotrust.gov  

Liz Clevenger 

Curator of 

Archaeology 

5086  716‐6786  lclevenger@presidiotrust.gov 

Kari Jones 

Archaeologist 5090  716‐8519  kjones@presidiotrust.gov 

Hans Barnaal 

GIS Specialist 4835  760‐0127  hbarnaal@presidiotrust.gov 

Archaeology Lab 

Fax 5089     

References  

Ballard, Hannah 

2012   Archaeological  Identification Testing and Monitoring Report  for  the Building 42  (Pershing Hall) 

Rehabilitation Project. On file at the Presidio Archaeology Lab.  

 

Barnaal, Hans A. 

2009   Presidio National Historic Landmark District Map of Predicted Archaeological Features. On file at 

the Presidio Archaeology Lab.  

 

Blind, Eric B and  Hans A. Barnaal 

2008   Presidio Elevation Change Model . On file at the Presidio Archaeology Lab. 

 

Geosyntec  

2012   Remeidial  Investigation Summary Report, Barnard Avenue Protected Range  (BAPR). Presidio of 

San Francisco. On file with the Presidio Trust.  

 

 

 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT LEAD IN SOIL REMOVAL AT BUILDINGS 40, 41, 45, 49 AND 50

Prepared by 

 

Kari Jones 

Presidio Archaeology Lab 

 

 

Prepared for 

 

Nina Larssen  

Presidio Trust Remediation 

 

 

    

August 2013 

 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT LEAD IN SOIL REMOVAL AT BUILDINGS 40, 41, 45, 49 AND 50 

 

I. BACKGROUND In accordance with Stipulation XII Archaeology of the “Programmatic Agreement Among The Presidio 

Trust, National Park Service, The Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, And The California State 

Historic Preservation Officer Regarding The Presidio Of San Francisco, Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area,” the treatment of archaeological properties shall be handled under the terms of an Archaeological 

Management Assessment and Monitoring Program (AMA/MP) that is prepared for individual 

undertakings or groups of related undertakings.   

 

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Presidio Trust proposes remediation of lead in soils in the driplines of Buildings 40, 41, 45, 49, and 50. Proposed project plans include removal of 1 to 1.5 feet of lead‐contaminated soils and offsite disposal of excavated material. The excavation is within the predicted extents of El Presidio de San Francisco, a contributing archaeological area of the Presidio National Historic Landmark District (NHLD). Specific project plans at each site are discussed by individual building below in Section IV‐Assessment.   

III. ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT The Presidio of San Francisco was found to be of national significance and designated a National Historic 

Landmark in 1962. The Presidio’s Landmark status was updated in 1993 to include many historic 

properties from the U.S. Army‐occupation period and was expanded to become a National Historic 

Landmark District (NHLD) (Alley et al. 1993). The 1993 NHLD update identified 51 historic‐era 

archaeological resources as contributing elements to the District. The period of significance for historic‐ 

era archaeological resources within the Presidio NHLD was determined to be primarily from 1776 to 

1890, although it was also recognized that under certain circumstances the period of significance could 

extend to 1917. Features post‐dating 1890 were considered to have progressively less potential for 

significance due to the increased historical documentation available to supply information about the 

Presidio and the lifeways of its inhabitants. The Presidio Archaeology Lab is completing an update of the 

NHLD documentation, which is currently in draft form (Presidio Trust n.d.). This AMA incorporates the 

new background research and updated GIS‐based mapping generated by the draft update. Feature 

naming and numbering conventions, however, follow the 1993 NHLD documentation.  

El Presidio de San Francisco, a contributing archaeological area of the NHLD is within the proposed 

project areas.  

 

PHAF #1: El Presidio de San Francisco El Presidio de San Francisco was initially settled in 1776. The post was situated at the northernmost edge of Spain’s North American colonies, and was integral to Spanish efforts to consolidate and expand its control of the region. The main quadrangle served as the center of military affairs, as well as religious and family life, during the Spanish and Mexican colonial periods. It was home to a cluster of buildings, and its protected plaza provided space for settlers and soldiers to worship, process foodstuffs, build and 

repair the many items necessary to sustain the community, as well as perform the administrative tasks required of the post. While the general layout of the quadrangle remained consistent over time, its dimensions and method of construction varied with each building phase. After the conclusion of the Mexican‐American War, in early 1847, General Kearny ordered the regular Army to occupy El Presidio. The soldiers renovated and settled in the existing adobe structures in addition to constructing new buildings and eventually expanding the post northward and westward to create the Main Post. 

 

Significance: NHL/NRHP Criteria: 1/A Events and Broad Patterns and 6/D Information Potential. 

Period  of  Significance:  1776‐1860  Colonial  Establishment,  Expansion  and  Fortification, Mexican 

War of Independence, Mexican Presidio, Abandonment, and Early US Occupation  

 El Presidio is a unique archaeological resource with the potential to examine all phases of Presidio occupation including Spanish‐Colonial, Mexican and American. Research at El Presidio will contribute to: reconstructing the processes by which the Spanish El Presidio site was structured and documenting the design and technology of the Presidio’s development; understanding the Native American involvement with the Spanish colonial/Mexican Presidio; documenting working conditions and the daily use of space; reconstructing dietary patterns; understanding the development of community and identity including the dynamics of class, ethnicity, and gender; and the role of material culture and consumerism in the contexts of military institutions. 

 

Integrity: Unknown Archaeological investigations have demonstrated the high integrity of archaeological deposits associated with the Spanish and Mexican colonial periods. In particular, architectural remains of the 1780 Chapel and associated structures have yielded thousands of archaeological artifacts and features. Portions of the broader El Presidio site, especially those in the vicinity of previous building improvements and additions, have been destroyed during historic and modern construction episodes. The integrity of El Presidio within the proposed project areas is unknown and is expected to vary by building. The potential to find intact Spanish‐colonial deposits in the project area is currently unknown in several of the proposed locations. Each site is discussed individually in Section IV‐ Assessment.    

IV. ASSESSMENT Proposals for each building are discussed individually below. The project plans are taken from sampling 

maps prepared by Haley and Aldrich for each proposed site. Recommendations for avoiding adverse 

effects to El Presidio de San Francisco are drawn from previous identification efforts.  

Building 40 The proposed action is to remove lead contaminated soil in the dripline of Building 40. The excavation is 

proposed at the north, east, and south building elevations. The majority of the proposed excavation is to 

1 foot below ground surface, but a targeted area at the southeast corner requires remedial excavation 

to 1.5 feet below ground surface.  

While the area is within the predicted extents of El Presidio, no previous archaeological identification 

efforts have been undertaken either in the area of direct effects or the immediate vicinity.  

Archaeological identification testing is recommended to determine the presence or absence of deposits 

associated with El Presidio. Results of these investigations will guide the appropriate treatment of the 

area to ensure that adverse effects are avoided. Either archaeological monitoring or a cap will be 

pursued, as appropriate.  

Building 41 The proposed action is to remove lead contaminated soil in the dripline of Building 41. The excavation is 

proposed at all building elevations to 1 foot below ground surface.  

While the area is within the predicted extents of El Presidio, no previous archaeological identification 

efforts have been undertaken either in the area of direct effects or the immediate vicinity.  

Archaeological identification testing is recommended to determine the presence or absence of deposits 

associated with El Presidio. Results of these investigations will guide the appropriate treatment of the 

area to ensure that adverse effects are avoided. Either archaeological monitoring or a cap will be 

pursued, as appropriate.  

Building 45 The proposed action is to remove lead contaminated soil at three locations in the dripline of Building 45. 

The areas, marked A, B, and C on the Haley and Aldrich Sample Location Summary Map, have varying 

levels of archaeological sensitivity.  

Area C is within an area of a documented historic‐era cut and the potential for the discovery of 

archaeological materials is very low. Excavation of contaminated soils is not anticipated to impact 

archaeological deposits. Periodic archaeological monitoring by a qualified archaeologist is 

recommended.  

Areas A and B are directly adjacent to previously identified archaeological deposits that are very likely to 

extend into Areas A and B. Archaeological testing for the Building 42 rehabilitation project identified a 

buried intact archaeological deposit as shallow as 8 inches below current ground surface directly 

adjacent to (east of) the proposed Area B (Schneider 2010). Archaeological testing by the National Park 

Service (Barker 1996) and monitoring completed during the rehabilitation of Building 49 (Ballard 2013) 

identified a buried deposit directly adjacent to (west of) Area A as shallow as 4 inches below ground 

surface. Because of the potential to impact subsurface archaeological deposits, a cap should be placed 

over Areas A and B. 

Building 49 The proposed action  is  to  remove  lead contaminated soil at one  remaining  location  in  the dripline of 

Building 49.  

Archaeological testing by the National Park Service (Barker 1996) identified a buried deposit as shallow 

as 4 inches below ground surface within the proposed remedial excavation area. Monitoring completed 

during the rehabilitation of Building 49 (Ballard 2013) and previous lead remediation efforts confirms 

the presence of an intact buried archaeological deposit around the perimeter of Building 49.  Because of 

the potential to impact subsurface archaeological deposits, a cap should be placed over the remaining 

lead contaminated soils at Building 49. 

Building 50 The proposed action is to remove lead contaminated soil at two locations at the north elevation of 

Building 50. These areas are marked A and B on the Haley and Aldrich Building 50 Sample Location 

Summary Map.  

Previous archaeological investigations immediately adjacent to Area B (Edwards et al. 2006; Jones n.d.) 

have confirmed  the presence of a buried archaeological deposit as shallow as 6  inches below current 

ground surface.  Because of the potential to impact subsurface archaeological deposits in Area A, a cap 

should be placed over the lead contaminated soils in lieu of excavation. 

No formal archaeological identification has been undertaken in the proposed Area A. Observations 

during excavation for the removal of existing veranda posts suggest that the area has been disturbed by 

recent landscape alterations (historic cuts to subsoil). Archaeological identification testing is 

recommended to confirm the presence or absence of subsurface archaeological deposits associated 

with El Presidio in Area B. Results of these investigations will guide the appropriate treatment of the 

area to ensure that adverse effects are avoided. Either archaeological monitoring or a cap will be 

pursued, as appropriate. 

 

V. RECOMMENDATIONS  

Archaeological Identification Proposed lead in soils remediation in the perimeter of Buildings 40, 41, and Area B at Building 50 are 

within portions of the archaeological site of El Presidio de San Francisco that have not been tested for 

archaeological deposits. In order to assess the potential for subsurface deposits and develop a plan for 

archaeological oversight of remedial actions, archaeological identification testing will be required. The 

results of identification testing will inform the design of an archaeological monitoring plan. 

Archaeological monitoring will ensure that there are no adverse effects to potentially significant 

archaeological deposits. Inadvertent discoveries during construction will be handled in accordance with 

protocols outlined below and detailed in the archaeological monitoring plan.  In some cases, a cap over 

lead contaminated soils may be the only solution that will ensure that adverse effects are avoided. 

Archaeological Monitoring An Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) will be developed for Buildings 40, 41, 45, and 50 following 

identification testing. Monitoring protocols are dependent on results of archaeological identification 

testing and extant information.  

Capping and Land Use Controls A cap over archaeological deposits is recommended at Building 49, Area B at Building 50, and Areas A 

and B at Building 45. It is possible that archaeological deposits with high stratigraphic integrity could be 

discovered during identification testing at Buildings 40 and 41 and within Area B at Building 50. These 

types of deposits are considered significant and capping and a land‐use control would be required to 

avoid adverse effects to the NHLD.  

Unanticipated Discovery Protocols There are three broad types of archaeological unanticipated discoveries:   

Human remains of Native American or other derivation. 

Cultural resources that have the potential to be significant. 

Cultural resources not requiring further consideration. 

 

An unanticipated discovery refers to any situation where previously unidentified archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during ground‐disturbing activities. Unanticipated discovery protocols apply to those archaeological finds that are exposed during excavation whether a monitor is present or not. All contractors will immediately report to the archaeological monitor if archaeological materials are uncovered during excavation and the contractor must cease operations within the vicinity of the find until the archaeological monitor is consulted. If cultural materials are uncovered they should be avoided by all future project activities and protected in place until a decision about their potential significance can be made. All materials are property of the Presidio Trust and are not to be taken for personal use or display.  The removal of artifacts from federal land is a federal offense and can result in substantial fines and/or imprisonment.  Archaeological resources include stone, brick, and concrete building foundations, isolated historic artifacts, historic privy pits and household waste deposits, and items of Native American derivation such as stone tools, shell and animal bone waste, shell beads, and habitation areas.  A more detailed list follows: 

Human remains; 

Concentrations of rock, ash, animal bone or shell; 

Buried layers containing a dark, almost black or very dark brown soil often containing charcoal and shell fragments,   

Concentrations of artifacts such as stone bowls, arrowheads, bone tools, shell beads, etc.; 

Architectural  foundations made of stone, brick, wood, or concrete 

Architectural fabric 

Concentrations or historic material such as fragments of glass bottles, ceramic dishes, old cans, metal hardware, or other obvious trash dumps; 

Pockets of debris containing food remains (e.g. cut bone, seeds, pits); and,  Other materials that do not qualify as archaeological resources might also be encountered.  These include:  subsurface utilities such as water or sewer lines, materials manufactured after 1950, and small concentrations of broken concrete, broken asphalt, modern aluminum cans or beer bottles, and/or unmarked, unmortared bricks that have been deposited as fill, if no other cultural materials are present. These are generally not considered significant finds but should be brought to the archaeological monitor’s attention to inform continued monitoring. 

If an unanticipated discovery is made during remedial excavation, monitoring protocols may be adjusted to ensure that adverse effects to potentially significant resources are avoided. If it is determined that archaeological monitoring is not sufficient to avoid adverse effects, project redesign or abandonment may be required.  

Human Remains It is very unlikely that human remains will be encountered during excavation at Buildings 40, 41, 45, 49, and 50, but if human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony are inadvertently discovered they shall be protected in place and avoided by all project activities.  Ground disturbing work in the vicinity of the find must immediately cease and the Presidio Trust archaeologist must be contacted. Presidio Archaeology Lab staff will notify the Presidio Trust’s Federal Preservation Officer. If necessary, the Presidio Trust will notify the San Francisco Medical Examiner of the inadvertent discovery of human remains.   

The immediate protection of human remains at the site shall be accomplished by (1) keeping any discovery confidential, and (2) securing the location to prevent disturbance of the remains and any associated materials.    The Presidio Trust archaeologist shall determine whether the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) applies to the discovery and will ensure that the finds are treated in compliance with all requirements outlined at 43 CFR 10.4. Any materials not subject to NAGPRA will remain under Federal control.    The Presidio Trust archaeologist shall determine whether the human remains are a single isolated burial or are potentially part of a cemetery or a larger archaeological site. This may necessitate the involvement of a consulting physical anthropologist. Articulated human remains, either as part of a single burial or larger cemetery, will be protected in place and avoided by all project activities. This may involve abandonment or redesign of the project.   If the discovery is limited to disarticulated human remains, the Presidio Trust archaeologist or a consulting physical anthropologist will direct necessary collection efforts. Further identification work may be necessary to determine the frequency of disarticulated human remains in the project area, and to determine an appropriate course of action. Any disarticulated remains collected from the site will be stored in archival boxes in a secure location until appropriate re‐interment can take place. No human remains will be accessioned into the Presidio Trust Archaeological Collections.  

 

Buildings 40, 41, 45, 49 & 50

Excavation Figures

Buildings 40, 41, 45, 49 & 50

Site Photos

 

 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT BUILDING 95 IMPROVEMENTS: LEAD IN SOIL REMEDIATION AND ADA

ACCESSIBILITY

Prepared by 

 

Kari Jones 

Presidio Archaeology Lab 

 

 

Prepared for 

 

Nina Larssen  

Presidio Trust Remediation 

 

 

Allison Stone 

Presidio Trust Planning, Projects, and Programs 

    

May 2013 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT BUILDING 95 IMPROVEMENTS: LEAD IN SOILS REMEDIATION AND ADA

ACCESSIBILTY  

 

I. BACKGROUND In accordance with Stipulation XII Archaeology of the “Programmatic Agreement Among The Presidio 

Trust, National Park Service, The Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, And The California State 

Historic Preservation Officer Regarding The Presidio Of San Francisco, Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area,” the treatment of archaeological properties shall be handled under the terms of an Archaeological 

Management Assessment and Monitoring Program (AMA/MP) that is prepared for individual 

undertakings or groups of related undertakings.   

 

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Presidio Trust proposes a full remediation of lead in soils in the dripline of Building 95, known as the Powder Magazine. A sampling map and proposed remedial footprint prepared by Haley and Aldrich for the Presidio Trust indicates that the full perimeter of the building requires remedial excavation to a depth between 1.0 and 1.5 feet below current ground surface. Following remediation, the Trust plans to complete minimal grading in the perimeter of the building to install new sidewalks and achieve ADA accessibility. Current plans propose less than 12 inches of grading in a limited area at the north and east elevations of Building 95. The excavation for all improvements is within the predicted extents of El Presidio de San Francisco, a contributing archaeological area of the Presidio National Historic Landmark District.   

III. ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT The Presidio of San Francisco was found to be of national significance and designated a National Historic 

Landmark in 1962. The Presidio’s Landmark status was updated in 1993 to include many historic 

properties from the U.S. Army‐occupation period and was expanded to become a National Historic 

Landmark District (NHLD) (Alley et al. 1993). The 1993 NHLD update identified 51 historic‐era 

archaeological resources as contributing elements to the District. The period of significance for historic‐ 

era archaeological resources within the Presidio NHLD was determined to be primarily from 1776 to 

1890, although it was also recognized that under certain circumstances the period of significance could 

extend to 1917. Features post‐dating 1890 were considered to have progressively less potential for 

significance due to the increased historical documentation available to supply information about the 

Presidio and the lifeways of its inhabitants. The Presidio Archaeology Lab is completing an update of the 

NHLD documentation, which is currently in draft form (Presidio Trust n.d.). This AMA incorporates the 

new background research and updated GIS‐based mapping generated by the draft update. Feature 

naming and numbering conventions, however, follow the 1993 NHLD documentation.  

El Presidio de San Francisco, a contributing archaeological area of the NHLD is within the proposed 

project area.  

 

PHAF #1: El Presidio de San Francisco El Presidio de San Francisco was initially settled in 1776. The post was situated at the northernmost edge of Spain’s North American colonies, and was integral to Spanish efforts to consolidate and expand its control of the region. The main quadrangle served as the center of military affairs, as well as religious and family life, during the Spanish and Mexican colonial periods. It was home to a cluster of buildings, and its protected plaza provided space for settlers and soldiers to worship, process foodstuffs, build and repair the many items necessary to sustain the community, as well as perform the administrative tasks required of the post. While the general layout of the quadrangle remained consistent over time, its dimensions and method of construction varied with each building phase. After the conclusion of the Mexican‐American War, in early 1847, General Kearny ordered the regular Army to occupy El Presidio. The soldiers renovated and settled in the existing adobe structures in addition to constructing new buildings and eventually expanding the post northward and westward to create the Main Post. 

 

Significance: NHL/NRHP Criteria: 1/A Events and Broad Patterns and 6/D Information Potential. 

Period  of  Significance:  1776‐1860  Colonial  Establishment,  Expansion  and  Fortification, Mexican 

War of Independence, Mexican Presidio, Abandonment, and Early US Occupation  

 El Presidio is a unique archaeological resource with the potential to examine all phases of Presidio occupation including Spanish‐Colonial, Mexican and American. Research at El Presidio will contribute to: reconstructing the processes by which the Spanish El Presidio site was structured and documenting the design and technology of the Presidio’s development; understanding the Native American involvement with the Spanish colonial/Mexican Presidio; documenting working conditions and the daily use of space; reconstructing dietary patterns; understanding the development of community and identity including the dynamics of class, ethnicity, and gender; and the role of material culture and consumerism in the contexts of military institutions. 

 

Integrity: Unknown Archaeological investigations have demonstrated the high integrity of archaeological deposits associated with the Spanish and Mexican colonial periods. In particular, architectural remains of the 1780 Chapel and associated structures have yielded thousands of archaeological artifacts and features. Portions of the broader El Presidio site, especially those in the vicinity of previous building improvements and additions, have been destroyed during historic and modern construction episodes. The integrity of El Presidio within the current proposed project area is unknown. It is expected that the construction of the Powder Magazine and subsequent landscaping and repeated paving episodes may have negatively impacted the site. The potential to find intact Spanish‐colonial deposits in the project area is currently unknown.   

IV. ASSESSMENT The Building 95 Improvements are within an area of the archaeological site of El Presidio de San 

Francisco that has not been tested for archaeological deposits. In order to assess the potential for 

subsurface deposits and develop a plan for archaeological oversight of remedial excavation, 

archaeological identification testing will be required. The results of identification testing will inform the 

design of an archaeological monitoring plan. Archaeological monitoring will ensure that there are no 

adverse effects to potentially significant archaeological deposits. Inadvertent discoveries during 

construction will be handled in accordance with protocols outlined below and detailed in the 

archaeological monitoring plan.   

Archaeological Identification Testing Archaeological testing has not been conducted within the proposed project area. Prior to project 

implementation, the Presidio Archaeology Lab will conduct auger testing within the proposed 

remediation footprint to determine the presence or absence of archaeological deposits. A hand‐held 

auger will be used to excavate at regular intervals. Approximately 8‐10 auger probes will be used. 

Excavated soil will be handled by personnel with appropriate lead awareness training. Soil will be 

backfilled in place. Artifacts will be collected.  

 

Archaeological Monitoring An  Archaeological Monitoring  Plan  (AMP)  will  be  developed  for  the  project  following  identification 

testing. Monitoring protocols are dependent on the results of archaeological testing. Three scenarios are 

presented here based on the most likely results of testing:  

1) No archaeological deposits. 

 If no archaeological materials are identified during archaeological testing, archaeological 

monitoring will comprise simple observation of all excavation by an archaeologist from the 

Presidio Archaeology Lab. No screening of recovered material will be required unless 

archaeological deposits are discovered during excavation. If archaeological deposits are located 

during remedial excavation, unanticpated discovery protocols should be followed.  

2) Undifferentiated archaeological deposits noted. 

 Typically, areas adjacent to the walls of the original El Presidio quadrangle contain 

undifferentiated deposits of artifacts that were laid down through years of refuse disposal. 

Some areas of subsequent disturbance and temporal mixing are expected in these deposits, but 

their information potential remains robust. In order to capture maximum data potential from 

these deposits, full artifact recovery is required. An archaeological monitor from the Presidio 

Archaeology Lab will observe all excavation and all recovered soils will be screened through 1/8” 

mesh. The remediation contractor will be required to provide the equipment and labor for 

artifact recovery.  

3) Stratigraphically distinct archaeological deposits discovered. 

 It is possible that archaeological deposits with high stratigraphic integrity could be identified 

during auger testing. These deposits often indicate the potential for intact archaeological 

features and undisturbed artifact deposits. These types of deposits are considered significant 

and archaeological excavation and recording would be required to avoid adverse effects to the 

NHLD. An archaeological monitor from the Presidio Archaeology Lab would be present during all 

excavation and the remediation contractor would be required to excavate at the monitor’s 

direction. This could include excavating in horizontal or vertical blocks specified by the monitor. 

All recovered soils will be screened through 1/8” mesh and all artifacts recovered and collected. 

If an archaeological feature determined to be significant is discovered during excavation, the 

archaeologist would be provided ample time and opportunity to document and fully excavate 

the feature. Depending on the significance and extent of archaeological features, monitoring 

protocols may be adjusted during the course of the project. If it is determined that 

archaeological monitoring is not sufficient to avoid adverse effects, project redesign or 

abandonment may be required.  

 

Unanticipated Discovery Protocols There are three broad types of archaeological unanticipated discoveries:   

Human remains of Native American or other derivation. 

Cultural resources that have the potential to be significant. 

Cultural resources not requiring further consideration. 

 

An unanticipated discovery refers to any situation where previously unidentified archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during ground‐disturbing activities. Unanticipated discovery protocols apply to those archaeological finds that are exposed during excavation whether a monitor is present or not. All contractors will immediately report to the archaeological monitor if archaeological materials are uncovered during excavation and the contractor must cease operations within the vicinity of the find until the archaeological monitor is consulted. If cultural materials are uncovered they should be avoided by all future project activities and protected in place until a decision about their potential significance can be made. All materials are property of the Presidio Trust and are not to be taken for personal use or display.  The removal of artifacts from federal land is a federal offense and can result in substantial fines and/or imprisonment.  Archaeological resources include stone, brick, and concrete building foundations, isolated historic artifacts, historic privy pits and household waste deposits, and items of Native American derivation such as stone tools, shell and animal bone waste, shell beads, and habitation areas.  A more detailed list follows: 

Human remains; 

Concentrations of rock, ash, animal bone or shell; 

Buried layers containing a dark, almost black or very dark brown soil often containing charcoal and shell fragments,   

Concentrations of artifacts such as stone bowls, arrowheads, bone tools, shell beads, etc.; 

Architectural  foundations made of stone, brick, wood, or concrete 

Architectural fabric 

Concentrations or historic material such as fragments of glass bottles, ceramic dishes, old cans, metal hardware, or other obvious trash dumps; 

Pockets of debris containing food remains (e.g. cut bone, seeds, pits); and,  Other materials that do not qualify as archaeological resources might also be encountered.  These include:  subsurface utilities such as water or sewer lines, materials manufactured after 1950, and small concentrations of broken concrete, broken asphalt, modern aluminum cans or beer bottles, and/or unmarked, unmortared bricks that have been deposited as fill, if no other cultural materials are present. These are generally not considered significant finds but should be brought to the archaeological monitor’s attention to inform continued monitoring. 

If an unanticipated discovery is made during remedial excavation, monitoring protocols may be adjusted to ensure that adverse effects to potentially significant resources are avoided. If it is determined that archaeological monitoring is not sufficient to avoid adverse effects, project redesign or abandonment may be required.  

Human Remains It is very unlikely that human remains will be encountered during excavation near Building 95, but if human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony are inadvertently discovered they shall be protected in place and avoided by all project activities.  Ground disturbing work in the vicinity of the find must immediately cease and the Presidio Trust archaeologist must be contacted. Presidio Archaeology Lab staff will notify the Presidio Trust’s Federal Preservation Officer. If necessary, the Presidio Trust will notify the San Francisco Medical Examiner of the inadvertent discovery of human remains.   The immediate protection of human remains at the site shall be accomplished by (1) keeping any discovery confidential, and (2) securing the location to prevent disturbance of the remains and any associated materials.    The Presidio Trust archaeologist shall determine whether the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) applies to the discovery and will ensure that the finds are treated in compliance with all requirements outlined at 43 CFR 10.4. Any materials not subject to NAGPRA will remain under Federal control.    The Presidio Trust archaeologist shall determine whether the human remains are a single isolated burial or are potentially part of a cemetery or a larger archaeological site. This may necessitate the involvement of a consulting physical anthropologist. Articulated human remains, either as part of a single burial or larger cemetery, will be protected in place and avoided by all project activities. This may involve abandonment or redesign of the project.   If the discovery is limited to disarticulated human remains, the Presidio Trust archaeologist or a consulting physical anthropologist will direct necessary collection efforts. Further identification work may be necessary to determine the frequency of disarticulated human remains in the project area, and to determine an appropriate course of action. Any disarticulated remains collected from the site will be stored in archival boxes in a secure location until appropriate re‐interment can take place. No human remains will be accessioned into the Presidio Trust Archaeological Collections.  

 

 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING PLAN BUILDING 95 IMPROVEMENTS: LEAD IN SOIL REMEDIATION AND

ADA ACCESSIBILITY

Prepared by 

 

Kari Jones 

Presidio Archaeology Lab 

 

 

 

Prepared for 

 

Nina Larssen 

Presidio Trust Remediation 

 

Allison Stone 

Presidio Trust Planning, Projects, and Programs 

     

June 2013 

BUILDING 95 IMPROVEMENTS: LEAD IN SOILS REMEDIATION AND ADA ACCESSIBILTY

I. PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION Archaeological  monitoring  is  the  observation  of  ground‐disturbing  activities  that  have  the 

potential uncover archaeological remains.  The term describes the work of an archaeologist in a 

construction zone or similar context. The purpose of this Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) 

is  to ensure  that any significant, previously unrecorded archaeological  resources  inadvertently 

discovered during construction activities for the Building 95 Improvements Project (Project) are 

treated  appropriately  in  accordance with  the Archaeological Management Assessment  (AMA) 

prepared for the project  (Jones 2013). This AMP serves to guide the archaeological monitor  in 

the field and to outline unanticipated discovery protocols for all construction personnel. 

 

III. ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT AND MONITORING PLAN The  AMA  prepared  for  the  project  identified  the  potential  for  effects  to  El  Presidio  de  San Francisco  and  recommended  archaeological  identification  testing within  the  footprint  of  the proposed  improvements.  Testing  was  designed  to  determine  presence  or  absence  of archaeological deposits and to assess their  integrity. Background  information on El Presidio de San Francisco  is provided  in  the AMA  (Jones 2013).Between  June 10th and 12th, 2013 Presidio Archaeology  Lab  staff  excavated  eight  4”  diameter  augers within  the  horizontal  and  vertical extents of the proposed excavation. No archaeological deposit associated with El Presidio was discovered  in the augers. Small amounts of American period metals and ceramics were noted. Given  the  small  sample  size  (eight  augers),  there  remains  potential,  albeit  low,  for  a  buried archaeological deposit within  the proposed project’s excavation area. As  such, archaeological monitoring  will  be  required  during  excavation,  as  outlined  in  the  AMA  (Option  1‐  No Archaeological Deposits).  

Preconstruction Briefing Prior to the  initiation of construction, the archaeological monitor will provide a briefing to the general  contractor  and  any  subcontractors  responsible  for  ground  disturbing  activities. Supervisory personnel,  foremen, excavation equipment operators, and  laborers  should attend the briefing. This session will be conducted at the  job site during normal work hours either as part of the OSHA required tailgate safety meetings or when the archaeologist  is on‐site at the beginning of the work day for the first time. Individual or group briefings will also be conducted when new subcontractors or workers are brought  in. The briefing will  include examples of the types of artifacts which have been previously found in the area of construction, procedures for archaeological monitoring, and unanticipated discovery protocols, as outlined below. Copies of this AMP will be distributed to supervisory personnel during the briefing. 

 

Monitoring Protocols Ground disturbance planned  for  the  improvements  includes excavation  to a maximum of 1.5 feet below current ground surface for lead in soil remediation and up to 12 inches of grading for ADA  accessibility  and  sidewalk  improvements.  Any  further  amendments  to  these  plans  or construction‐phase modifications  that  require ground disturbance should be submitted  to  the 

Presidio Archaeology  Lab  for  review  so  that  any modifications  can  be  incorporated  into  this monitoring plan.    Archaeological monitoring will be provided by Presidio Archaeology Lab staff. The archaeological monitor is required to record observations made in the field during excavation and to document the  general  stratigraphy  of  the  areas  monitored.  In  the  event  of  a  potentially  significant discovery,  it  is  the  responsibility of  the monitor  to stop  the work  in  the area and ensure  that there are no adverse effects  to cultural  resources. The Presidio Trust Archaeologist should be immediately  contacted  in  the  event  of  work  stoppage.  It  is  the  archaeological  monitor’s responsibility  to  record  the  specific  location  of  any  historic  material  uncovered  during excavation with as much precision and accuracy as  is  feasible. All primary documentation will inform a final monitoring report and be included as appendices to the report.  

Full‐time monitoring  is  defined  as  continuous  observation  by  an  archaeologist  of  all  ground‐disturbance required for a project component, regardless of the horizontal or vertical extent of the  planned  excavation.  That  is,  an  archaeologist must  be  physically  present  to  observe  the project activity  from  the  initial breaking of  the ground surface  to  the base of excavation. Full‐time archaeological monitoring will be required in all portions of the project that are within the known and predicted extents of El Presidio  . Monitoring may become periodic  in areas of  the improvements  that  are  outside  of  El  Presidio.  The  decision  to  reduce  the  frequency  of observation to periodic monitoring  is at the monitor’s discretion and will be based on ongoing observations of subsurface conditions.   

IV. UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY PROTOCOLS There are three types of unanticipated discoveries that are covered by this monitoring plan:  

Human remains of Native American or other derivation. 

Cultural resources that have the potential to be significant. 

Cultural resources not requiring further consideration. 

An unanticipated discovery refers to any situation where previously unidentified human remains or archaeological resources are encountered during ground‐disturbing activities. Unanticipated discovery protocols apply to those archaeological finds that are exposed during construction or construction‐related  activities  whether  a  monitor  is  present  or  not.      All  contractors  will immediately  report  to  the  archaeological monitor  if  archaeological materials  are  uncovered during  construction activities. All  contractors must  cease operations within  the vicinity of  the find until the archaeological monitor  is consulted. The archaeologist may,  if necessary, consult with the Presidio Trust archaeologist. If cultural materials are uncovered they should be avoided by  all  future  project  activities  and  protected  in  place  until  a  decision  about  their  potential significance can be made. All materials are property of the Presidio Trust and are not to be taken for personal use or display.    Archaeological  resources  include  stone,  brick,  and  concrete  building  foundations,  isolated historic artifacts, historic landfill deposits, historic privy pits and household waste deposits, and items  of Native American  derivation  such  as  stone  tools,  shell  and  animal  bone waste,  shell beads, and habitation areas.  A more detailed list follows: 

Human remains; 

Concentrations of rock, ash, animal bone or shell; 

Buried layers containing a dark, almost black or very dark brown soil often containing charcoal and shell fragments,   

Concentrations of artifacts such as stone bowls, arrowheads, bone tools, shell beads, etc.; 

Architectural  foundations made of stone, brick, wood, or concrete 

Concentrations or historic material such as fragments of glass bottles, ceramic dishes, old cans, metal hardware, or other obvious trash dumps; 

Pockets of debris containing food remains (e.g. cut bone, seeds, pits); and,  Other materials  that  do  not  qualify  as  archaeological  resources might  also  be  encountered.  These  include:   subsurface utilities such as water or sewer  lines, materials manufactured after 

1950,  and  small  concentrations of broken  concrete, broken  asphalt,  single bottles, modern aluminum  cans  or  beer  bottles,  and/or  unmarked,  unmortared  bricks  that  have  been 

deposited as fill, if no other cultural materials are present. These are generally not considered significant  finds  but  should  be  brought  to  the  archaeologist’s  attention  to  inform continued monitoring. 

Human Remains All project‐related ground‐disturbing activities have been designed to avoid human remains. If  human  remains,  funerary  objects,  sacred  objects,  or  objects  of  cultural  patrimony  are inadvertently  discovered  they  shall  be  protected  in  place  and  avoided  by  all  project activities.  Ground disturbing work in the vicinity of the find must immediately cease and the Presidio Trust archaeologist must be contacted. Presidio Archaeology Lab staff will notify the Presidio Trust’s Federal Preservation Officer.  If necessary,  the Presidio Trust will notify  the San Francisco Medical Examiner of the inadvertent discovery of human remains.   The immediate protection of human remains at the site shall be accomplished by (1) keeping any  discovery  confidential,  and  (2)  securing  the  location  to  prevent  disturbance  of  the remains and any associated materials.     The  Presidio  Trust  archaeologist  shall  determine  whether  the  Native  American  Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) applies to the discovery and will ensure that the finds are treated in compliance with all requirements outlined at 43 CFR 10.4. Any materials not subject to NAGPRA will remain under Federal control.    The Presidio  Trust  archaeologist  shall determine whether  the human  remains  are  a  single isolated burial or are potentially part of a cemetery or a larger archaeological site. This may necessitate  the  involvement  of  a  consulting  physical  anthropologist.  Articulated  human remains, either as part of a single burial or larger cemetery, will be protected in place and avoided by all project activities. This may involve abandonment or redesign of the project.   If the discovery is limited to disarticulated human remains, the Presidio Trust archaeologist or a  consulting  physical  anthropologist  will  direct  necessary  collection  efforts.  Further identification work may  be  necessary  to  determine  the  frequency  of  disarticulated  human remains  in  the  project  area,  and  to  determine  an  appropriate  course  of  action.  Any disarticulated  remains  collected  from  the  site will  be  stored  in  archival  boxes  in  a  secure location until appropriate re‐interment can take place. No human remains will be accessioned into the Presidio Trust Archaeological Collections.  

V. CONTACT INFORMATION In  the event of a discovery  that  requires consultation with  the Presidio Archaeology Lab, Kari 

Jones,  the  project manager  for  archaeology,  should  be  contacted. Most  inquires  should  be 

directed  to  Ms.  Jones.  Liz  Clevenger,  Curator  of  Archaeology,  should  be  contacted  for 

information  relating  to  the collection and/or discard of archeological materials. Hans Barnaal, 

GIS  Specialist,  can  be  contacted  for  GIS  or  mapping  assistance.  Eric  Blind,  Principal 

Archaeologist, should be contacted in the event that any of the aforementioned staff members 

are unavailable.  

Name  Office phone  Mobile phone  Email 

(415) 561‐   

Eric Blind 

Principal 

Archaeologist 

5091  850‐5166  eblind@presidiotrust.gov  

Liz Clevenger 

Curator of 

Archaeology 

5086  716‐6786  lclevenger@presidiotrust.gov 

Kari Jones 

Archaeologist 5090  716‐8519  kjones@presidiotrust.gov 

Hans Barnaal 

GIS Specialist 4835  760‐0127  hbarnaal@presidiotrust.gov 

Archaeology Lab 

Fax 5089     

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT BUILDING 637 AREA CORRECTIVE ACTION EXCAVATIONS

Prepared by 

 

Montserrat Osterlye and Kari Jones 

Presidio Archaeology Lab 

 

 

 

Prepared for 

 

Genevieve Coyle Presidio Trust Remediation 

  

 

 

 

 

 

This  report  contains  confidential  archaeological  resources  location  information;  its 

distribution  should  be  restricted  to  those  with  a  need  to  know.  Archaeological 

resources are nonrenewable, and their scientific, cultural, and aesthetic values can be 

harmed  by  disturbance.  The  legal  authority  to  restrict  archaeological  resources 

information is in Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 

 

 

 

 

 

September 2013  

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT BUILDING 637 REMEDIATION AREA CLEANUP

 

I. BACKGROUND  

In accordance with Stipulation XII Archaeology of  the  “Programmatic Agreement Among The Presidio 

Trust, National  Park  Service,  The Advisory Council On Historic  Preservation, And  The California  State 

Historic Preservation Officer Regarding The Presidio Of San Francisco, Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area,” the management of archaeological properties shall be handled  in accordance with the terms of 

an Archaeological Management Assessment  and Monitoring Program  (AMA/MP)  that  is prepared  for 

individual undertakings or groups of related undertakings.   

 

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION  The Building 637 Remediation Area is adjacent to Crissy Field, bounded by Building 640 to the west, Mason Street to the north, Building 638 to the east, and Battery Blaney to the south. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has directed the Presidio Trust (Trust) to clean up contamination in the area. A minimum of 3,200 cubic yards of contaminated soil will be removed from 3 excavations. Excavation will proceed to 7 feet below ground surface using standard excavation equipment. Soil will be stockpiled on site until plans for offsite disposal are completed. The excavation will extend north to Mason Street. If contamination extends underneath Mason Street, the excavation may continue north into Mason Street. Groundwater is expected between 4 and 5 feet below current ground surface. 

 

III. ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT There are no known historical archaeological features in the Building 637 Remediation Area. Portions of 

the  area  are,  however,  considered  to  be moderately  sensitive  for  prehistoric  cultural materials  (i.e. 

Native Ohlone  features and artifacts) based on modeling  completed by  the Presidio Archaeology  Lab 

(Barnaal 2009) and  its proximity  to  the prehistoric Ohlone shellmound SFR‐6/26. Excavations revealed 

that SFR‐6/26  is buried beneath at  least 5 feet of historic‐era fill (Jones & Stokes 2002). Monitoring of 

prior remedial mass excavation adjacent to the Building 637 Remediation Area (EKI 2000) revealed no 

archaeological material, confirming  the predictions of  the Presidio Elevation Change Model  (Blind and 

Barnaal 2008) that the remediation area  is covered by 15‐20 feet of historic‐era fill. This soil was  likely 

imported in 1895 during efforts to fill in the slough and marsh for Army construction and again in 1911 

in preparation for the Panama Pacific  International Exposition. Both of these filling episodes post‐date 

the  archaeological  period  of  significance  (1776‐1890)  for  the  Presidio  National  Historic  Landmark 

District.  

 

IV. ASSESSMENT The Building 637 Remediation Area  is  located within an archaeologically sensitive zone. However,  the 

planned depths of remedial excavation are within historic‐era fill, as predicted by the Presidio Elevation 

Change  Model  (Blind  and  Barnaal  2008)  and  confirmed  by  archaeological  monitoring  (EKI  2000). 

Therefore,  there  is a  low  likelihood of encountering archaeological material during ground disturbing 

activities  for  this  project.  The  Presidio  Trust  Archaeology  Lab  will  conduct  periodic  archaeological 

monitoring and inspection of stockpiled soil for the duration of the excavation.  

  If archaeological materials are  located during remediation activities, they should be avoided and 

protected in place and the Presidio Archaeology Lab should be contacted. In the event of an inadvertent 

discovery the Presidio Archaeology Lab, working with the remediation team, will determine the proper 

treatment  of  the  feature  and  develop  an  Archaeological  Monitoring  Plan  (AMP)  to  guide  future 

excavations.  

 

V. Inadvertent Discovery Protocols An inadvertent discovery refers to any situation where previously unidentified archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during ground‐disturbing activities. Inadvertent discovery protocols apply  to  those  archaeological  finds  that  are  exposed  during  construction  or  construction‐related activities whether an archaeologist is present or not.   There are three types of inadvertent discoveries that are covered by this monitoring plan:  

Human remains. 

Cultural resources that are significant or have the potential to be significant. 

Cultural resources that a qualified archaeologist determines do not require further consideration. 

If any of these three types is inadvertently discovered during remediation, the contractor should follow the steps outlined below:  

All  contractors  will  immediately  report  to  Presidio  Archaeology  Lab  staff  if  archaeological materials are uncovered during remediation activities. 

Operations  within  the  vicinity  of  the  find  should  be  temporarily  halted  until  the  Presidio Archaeology Lab is consulted.   

Presidio Archaeology Lab staff will make a determination of significance for the find.  

All materials, whether determined significant or not, are property of the Presidio Trust and are not to be taken for personal use or display.   

Archaeological  resources  include  stone,  brick,  and  concrete  building  foundations,  isolated  historic artifacts, historic landfill deposits, historic privy pits and household waste deposits, and items of Native American derivation such as stone tools, shell and animal bone waste, shell beads, and habitation areas.  A more detailed list follows: 

Human remains; 

Concentrations of rock, ash, animal bone or shell; 

Earth containing a dark, almost black or very dark brown soil often containing charcoal; 

Easily crumbled dark gray‐brown soil with abundant shell fragments, animal bone, charcoal and artifacts such as shell beads, mortars, pestles, arrowheads, bone tools, etc.; 

Concentrations of artifacts such as stone bowls, arrowheads, bone tools, shell beads, etc.; 

Deposits containing large amounts of shell;  

Deposits containing glass bottles, metal, old cans or other obvious trash dumps (Note: single bottles, modern aluminum cans or beer bottles are not considered significant finds); 

Foundations (stone, concrete, brick or wood); 

Wells (outline, brick or wood lined);  

Trash dumps containing food debris (e.g. cut bone, seeds, pits); and, 

Adobe (unfired or fired) clay bricks.  Prior characterization of  the Building 637 Remediation Area  suggests  that  it  is  largely  late nineteenth and  early  twentieth  century  fill.    If  isolated,  these materials  are not  considered  to be  archaeological resources and do not require further consideration. Other materials that do not qualify as archaeological resources might also be encountered.  These include: modern subsurface utilities such as water or sewer lines, materials manufactured after 1950, and small concentrations of broken concrete, broken asphalt, and/or unmarked, unmortared bricks that have been deposited as fill, if no other cultural materials are present.  

Human remains 

Project‐related  ground‐disturbing  activities  have  been  designed  to  avoid  human  remains.  If  human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony are inadvertently discovered they shall be protected  in place and avoided by all project activities.  Ground disturbing work  in  the vicinity of  the  find must  immediately  cease  and  the  Presidio  Trust  archaeologist must be  contacted. Presidio Archaeology Lab staff will notify the Presidio Trust’s Federal Preservation Officer. If necessary, the Presidio Trust will notify the San Francisco Medical Examiner of the inadvertent discovery of human remains.  

 The  immediate protection of human  remains at  the  site  shall be accomplished by  (1) keeping any discovery confidential, and (2) securing the  location to prevent disturbance of the remains and any associated materials.    The Presidio Trust archaeologist shall determine whether the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation  Act  (NAGPRA)  applies  to  the  discovery  and will  ensure  that  the  finds  are  treated  in compliance with all requirements outlined at 43 CFR 10.4. Any materials not subject to NAGPRA will remain under Federal control.    The Presidio Trust archaeologist  shall determine whether  the human  remains are a  single  isolated burial or are potentially part of a cemetery or a  larger archaeological site. This may necessitate the involvement of a consulting physical anthropologist. Articulated human remains, either as part of a single burial or larger cemetery, will be protected in place and avoided by all project activities. This may involve abandonment or redesign of the project.   If  the  discovery  is  limited  to  disarticulated  human  remains,  the  Presidio  Trust  archaeologist  or  a consulting physical anthropologist will direct necessary collection efforts. Further  identification work may be necessary to determine the frequency of disarticulated human remains in the project area and to determine an appropriate course of action. Any disarticulated remains collected from the site will be  stored  in  archival  boxes  in  a  secure  location  until  appropriate  re‐interment  can  take  place. No human remains will be accessioned into the Presidio Trust Archaeological Collections.   

V. Contact Information In the event of a discovery that requires a significance determination  in consultation with the Presidio 

Archaeology  Lab,  Kari  Jones,  the  designated  project manager  for  archaeology,  should  be  contacted. 

Most other inquires can also be directed to Ms. Jones. Liz Clevenger, Curator of Archaeology, should be 

contacted  for  information  relating  to  the  collection  and/or  discard  of  archaeological materials. Hans 

Barnaal, GIS Specialist, can be contacted for GIS or mapping assistance.  

 

REFERENCES Barnaal, Hans A. 

2009   Presidio National Historic Landmark District Map of Predicted Archaeological Features. On file at 

the Presidio Archaeology Lab.  

 

Blind, Eric B and  Hans A. Barnaal 

2008   Presidio Elevation Change Model . On file at the Presidio Archaeology Lab.  EKI  2000    Excavation  Report  for  the  Building  637  Area  at  the  Presidio  of  San  Francisco. On  file  at  the 

Presidio Trust. 

Jones & Stokes, and Albion Environmental, Inc.  2002   Doyle Drive Project: Phase I Extended Survey Report/ Phase II Evaluation Report. Prepared for 

Parsons Brinckerhoff and San Francisco County Transportation Authority, San Francisco, CA.